By News Desk 
Many people across the country earn income by giving their property on rent, but it is often seen that the tenants refuse to vacate the house, which leads to disputes. In one such case, the Supreme Court has recently given an important decision, which can prove to be a guideline for both landlords and tenants. This decision has clarified the situation regarding their rights and responsibilities.
The landlord has full right to vacate the property as per his requirement
The Supreme Court clarified that the landlord is free to decide which of his properties should be vacated for his requirement. The tenant cannot refuse on the ground that the landlord also has other properties available, which he can use.
Supreme Court’s comment
According to the report of Live Law, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal concept related to the eviction of the tenant. The court said that if the landlord’s need is genuine and he has decided to vacate a particular property, then his decision will be considered valid. The landlord knows his needs best, and he has the right to decide which place is suitable for him.
The court also said that the tenant cannot be given the right to decide which property the landlord should use. If the landlord has decided that he needs a particular property, then it cannot be questioned.
What was the whole matter?
This case came to light when a landlord filed a petition in the Supreme Court that he wants to install an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, for which he has to vacate one of his rented places. First the lower court and then the High Court rejected his petition, after which the matter reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the tenant’s objection
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh heard the case. During the hearing, the tenant argued that the landlord also has other properties, so he can fulfill his needs from some other place.
On this, the Supreme Court clearly stated that if the landlord’s requirement is genuine and he wants a particular property for his use, then the tenant cannot force him to be satisfied with another place.
Selection of property is the landlord’s right
The court also added that the property sought to be vacated by the landlord was located near a medical clinic and pathology center, which was the most suitable place to install an ultrasound machine. In such a situation, the landlord’s decision was logical and necessary.
Relief to landlords from the decision
With this decision of the Supreme Court, it has become clear that the landlord can use his property according to his needs. The tenant does not have the right to decide which property should be vacated. However, the landlord’s requirement should be genuine and true, it is not justified to remove the tenant only on the basis of wish. This decision is a big relief for those landlords who are facing difficulties in getting their property vacated when the time comes.