Across the country, many individuals earn income by renting out their properties. However, legal disputes often arise when tenants refuse to vacate the premises. Addressing this issue, the Supreme Court recently delivered a crucial judgment that holds significance for both landlords and tenants.
Supreme Court’s Clarification on Property Eviction
The Supreme Court emphasized that landlords have the absolute right to determine which portion of their rented property should be vacated to meet their requirements. Tenants cannot challenge the eviction by arguing that the landlord owns other properties that could serve the same purpose.
Supreme Court’s Statement on Tenant Eviction
According to Live Law, the court reiterated that eviction laws based on the landlord’s genuine need are well-established. It is essential to ensure that the request to vacate is not arbitrary but stems from a legitimate necessity. The court further stated that the landlord is the best judge of his own needs and can decide which property should be reclaimed.
Tenants have no authority in deciding which property a landlord should free from tenancy. If the landlord determines that a specific space is required for personal use, the tenant cannot contest this decision.
The Case Behind the Ruling
The ruling stemmed from a case where a landlord approached the Supreme Court, seeking eviction of a tenant to install an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. Both the lower court and the High Court had dismissed the landlord’s plea, leading him to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh heard the case. During the proceedings, the tenant argued that the landlord owned other properties and could fulfill his need by vacating a different space.
Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Argument
The Supreme Court rejected the tenant’s defense, stating that if the landlord’s need is genuine, he has the right to reclaim a specific property. The tenant cannot dictate which part of the landlord’s property should be vacated.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that landlords cannot be compelled to evict a different tenant instead. In this case, the property in question was situated next to a medical clinic and pathological center, making it the ideal location for an ultrasound machine.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision
This landmark judgment affirms that landlords have the right to utilize their properties as per their needs. Tenants cannot dictate which property should be vacated. However, eviction must be based on a legitimate requirement rather than mere preference. This ruling provides relief to landlords who face challenges in reclaiming their rented properties when needed.
