Landlord Has the Right to Choose Property for Eviction
Across the country, people rent out their properties to earn a steady monthly income, helping them manage their household expenses. However, a common challenge landlords face is tenants refusing to vacate the rented premises when needed. If you rent out your property, an important ruling by the Supreme Court could be crucial for you to understand. In a recent case, the Supreme Court stated that the landlord has the authority to decide which part of the rented property should be vacated to fulfill their personal requirements. Tenants cannot argue that the landlord owns other properties and should utilize them instead.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Tenant Eviction
As per a report by Live Law, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the legal principle regarding eviction due to the landlord’s genuine need is well established. The requirement should be legitimate and not merely a desire to remove tenants. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of their properties should be vacated to meet their specific needs. The tenant has no right to determine which property should be freed in an eviction case.”
The Case of Eviction for Installing Medical Equipment
In this particular case, a landlord approached the Supreme Court, stating that he needed to install an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons and required the rented property to be vacated. The lower court rejected his request, and the High Court upheld that decision. The case was then heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotishwar Singh.
Tenant’s Argument Rejected
During the hearing, the tenant contended that the landlord owned other properties and could utilize one of them instead of evicting the current premises. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, reinforcing that once a genuine need of the landlord is established, the tenant cannot dictate which property should be vacated based on their convenience.
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled, “Even if the landlord possesses other properties, once the genuine need for vacating a particular premises is established, the tenant cannot insist on evicting another property instead. If a landlord requires the space for installing an ultrasound machine for his unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to take action against other tenants. Furthermore, it is evident that the requested location is the most suitable for such an installation, as it is adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological center.”
This landmark ruling sets a precedent, ensuring landlords have the right to reclaim their properties based on legitimate needs without interference from tenants.
