MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Landlord's Bonafide Need for Son's Business Upheld: Bombay High Court Affirms Tenant's Eviction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Kapil


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, affirmed the eviction of a tenant from a shop premise, emphasizing the landlord's bonafide need for his second son's business venture. The decision, pronounced by Justice Avinash G. Gharote on November 10, 2023, underscores the principle that separate and independent needs of family members can be valid grounds for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

The case, involving The Nagpur Popular Book Shop, brought into focus the ongoing struggle between landlords and tenants over eviction based on personal necessity. The judgment meticulously evaluated the bonafide need of the landlord for his second son, who plans to start a restaurant in the disputed shop space.

Justice Gharote, in his decision, stated, "The landlord is the best judge of his need and a tenant cannot dictate how and in what manner the need can be satisfied." This statement captures the essence of the court's stance on the rights of property owners and their family members' legitimate business aspirations.

The High Court dismissed the petition filed by The Nagpur Popular Book Shop, challenging the earlier decision of the Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Nagpur, and the subsequent affirmation by the District Judge. The tenant had occupied the shop since 1986, but the court found the landlord's requirement for his son's restaurant business to be a bona fide need, justifying eviction.

In his judgment, Justice Gharote further clarified, "There is no restriction in the provisions of the MRC Act, which requires the separate and independent need of all members of the family to be pleaded at the same time." This observation effectively addresses the tenant's argument against filing multiple suits for different family members' needs.

The court also examined the comparative hardships between the landlord and tenant, concluding that the landlord's hardship outweighed that of the tenant. This detailed analysis further reinforced the verdict in favor of the landlord.

The decision is expected to have significant implications on future cases involving eviction suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, particularly those related to the bonafide needs of landlords and their family members.

Date of Decision: 10 November, 2023

The Nagpur Popular Book Shop VS Manohar Ramdas Burudkar (Dead)

Latest Legal News