Tenant’s Dishonest Claims Exposed: High Court Upholds Eviction for Bona Fide Need and Rent Default

Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the eviction decree against a tenant, Lovely Jogindersingh Sethi, reaffirming the decisions of the Small Causes Court and the District Judge, Pune. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, underscores the tenant’s failure to prove bona fide occupancy and highlights instances of dishonesty in claims regarding tenancy and alternate accommodations.

Lovely Jogindersingh Sethi occupied two residential blocks on the ground floor of House Property No. 1992, Convent Street, Pune, which was purchased by Nayeem Riyaz Khan and Mrs. Naina Naiem Khan in 2008. The plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, bona fide requirement, and nuisance. The tenant had not paid rent since 1995 and opposed the eviction, claiming possession of additional blocks and denying the landlord’s bona fide need.

The court examined the tenant’s claims and found multiple inconsistencies and attempts to mislead. Sethi claimed tenancy over four blocks instead of the two mentioned in the lease, and despite initial resistance, admitted under cross-examination that property tax records indicated his father’s ownership of an alternate flat, disproving his claim of no other accommodation.

The court noted the plaintiffs’ detailed account of their inadequate living conditions and the reasonable necessity for additional space. They required the premises to accommodate their family, including elderly and school-going children, and for professional use as advocates. The court found that the plaintiffs’ need outweighed the tenant’s continued occupation, especially given the tenant’s substantial alternate accommodation.

The tenant’s failure to pay rent since 1995, except for a brief period, was undisputed. Additionally, the tenant obstructed the plaintiffs’ entry to their property, constituting nuisance and annoyance. The court emphasized that such actions justified eviction under relevant legal provisions.

Justice Marne emphasized that eviction decrees could be upheld if bona fide need, rent default, and nuisance are convincingly demonstrated. The court dismissed the tenant’s appeal, highlighting the misuse of legal provisions by the tenant and the honest need of the landlords.

Justice Marne remarked, “The misleading defense by the tenant and attempts to fabricate evidence severely undermine the integrity of his claims. The plaintiffs’ bona fide need is genuine, and their hardship is apparent.”

The dismissal of the tenant’s writ petition reinforces the importance of truthful representation in tenancy disputes and supports landlords’ rights to reclaim their property for genuine needs. The judgment sets a precedent for addressing dishonest defenses and upholding rightful claims of property owners.

Date of Decision: July 31, 2024

Lovely Jogindersingh Sethi vs. Nayeem Riyaz Khan and Mrs. Naina Naiem Khan