Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord's Choice Of Premises, Subjective Choice Over Alternative Accommodations Must Be Respected: Supreme Court

"Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for the premises... his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that a landlord has the absolute prerogative to choose which of their properties is most suited for their personal use, and a tenant cannot dictate which alternative accommodation the landlord must occupy.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih observed that the concept of genuine requirement needs a practical approach, and courts cannot compel a landlord to accept a less preferred accommodation simply because it is vacant.

The dispute originated when one Kamla Devi (now deceased) filed a suit for eviction against her tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, citing non-payment of rent and a bona fide requirement to run a boutique for herself and her son. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently ruled in favour of the landlady and ordered eviction. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed these findings in revision, holding that the landlady had concealed the existence of a third shop which she was allegedly using to store garbage, thereby implying she did not approach the court with clean hands.

The primary question before the court was whether a tenant could defeat an eviction petition by pointing out that the landlord possesses an alternative vacant accommodation, thereby dictating the landlord's choice of premises. The court was also called upon to determine whether the High Court could reappreciate evidence and overturn concurrent factual findings regarding a landlord's bona fide need while exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Subjective Choice Of Landlord Must Be Respected

The Supreme Court heavily emphasized that while a landlord cannot arbitrarily evict a tenant without due process, the law fully protects a landlord's genuine, felt need to occupy their own property. Expanding on the contours of the 'bona fide requirement', the Court reiterated that the judge of facts must place himself in the armchair of the landlord to determine if the need is natural, real, sincere, and honest.

Court Cannot Thrust Its Own Wisdom

Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Court noted that once the objective standards of a landlord's need are met, the matter of choosing out of multiple available accommodations is entirely up to the landlord. The bench observed that the court must not thrust its own wisdom upon the landlord's choice by holding that the other accommodation should satisfy their need instead of the tenanted premises.

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

Addressing the High Court's reasoning that the landlady had a third shop which she was merely using to store waste materials, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion that this negated her bona fide need for the tenanted premises. The bench firmly defended the landlord's right to utilize her properties as she saw fit, remarking that even if she used an alternate shop to store garbage, it was not for the tenant or the High Court to object.

"The old saying is, 'one man’s trash is another man’s treasure'. So, even if the statement is accepted as it is, we fail to see what is wrong with it. Let it be used as such."

Objective Element In Bona Fide Need

The bench also referenced Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini to clarify the fine line between a mere whim and a legal requirement. The Court explained that while a landlord's desire for possession inevitably has a subjective element, for that desire to become a "requirement" in law, it must possess an objective element of "need" determined by evaluating all relevant circumstances, ensuring the statutory protection given to tenants is not rendered illusory.

Strict Limits On High Court's Revisional Power

Moving to the procedural illegality committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of reappreciating evidence in revisional jurisdiction. Citing the constitutional bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court clarified that revisional power under Section 115 CPC cannot be equated with the power of a first appellate court to reconsider all questions of fact.

Concurrent Findings Of Fact Cannot Be Disturbed

The bench observed that the High Court is only empowered to interfere if the subordinate courts' findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from a total non-appreciation of material evidence. The Court held that merely because another view of the evidence was possible regarding the use of the alternative shop, it was no ground for the High Court to interfere and set aside reasoned concurrent factual findings passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable both on factual grounds regarding the landlord's prerogative, and on the jurisdictional ground of exceeding Section 115 CPC limits. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the eviction orders of the lower authorities, and directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised shop within two months.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2026