Bonafide Occupation Requirement: Landlord vs Tenant

In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the case of bonafide occupation requirement was deliberated between the landlord and tenant. The judgement sheds light on the intricacies of landlord-tenant disputes and the crucial consideration of bonafide requirement. Stay tuned for more insights from this landmark case.


  • Appellant was the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent based on ownership of the property derived from a partition deed.
  • Rent Control Court framed two points for consideration – bonafide requirement for setting up a garment shop and intent to demolish and reconstruct.
  • Landlord claimed ownership and intention for own use, while tenant opposed alleging landlord’s motive for higher rent.
  • Appellate Authority upheld Rent Control Court’s decision dismissing the appeal filed by tenant.
  • High Court reversed the decisions and appellant is aggrieved.
  • Tenant filed Civil Revision Petition before the High Court.
  • Landlord filed petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act seeking eviction.
  • Tenant approached High Court in Civil Revision Petition against concurrent orders.
  • Appellant filed appeal before Rent Control Appellate Authority, which upheld Rent Controller’s decision.
  • Landlord examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents to establish the claim.
  • The Rent Controller’s Court concluded that the landlord’s claim was established based on the evidence and documents presented.
  • The Rent Controller directed the eviction of the tenant, granting a two-month period to vacate.
  • The High Court reviewed the evidence and conclusions of the lower courts and disagreed with them.
  • The High Court ruled in favor of the tenant, stating that the landlord had not proven the bonafide requirement claimed.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees


  • The consideration is focused on the satisfaction recorded by the original Court, the Rent Controller, and whether any perversity is evident in that satisfaction.
  • The key aspect is to determine if the Appellate Authority has adequately considered the evidence and arrived at a conclusion to its satisfaction.
  • Reappreciation of evidence in the Civil Revision Petition to propose an alternate view is not relevant to the current inquiry.
  • The crucial point is to ascertain if the Rent Controller correctly assessed the bonafide claim under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, 1960 and the alleged hardship to the tenant as per the proviso.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes


  • High Court erred in requiring bonafide occupation to be proven on the date of final adjudication
  • Delay in judicial process should not deny benefit to landlord
  • Tenant’s admission of possession of alternate premises weakens hardship claim
  • Lack of approved plan or financial capacity proof not fatal if landlord’s requirement can be met with minor alterations
  • Civil Revision Petition is not an appeal
  • Rent Controller’s consideration of evidence in favor of landlord’s requirement
  • Requirement for running a garment shop established despite tenant’s denial of jural relationship
  • Landlord should not be penalised for slowness of legal system
  • Critical date for deciding bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction
  • Bonafide requirement of landlord is established in present facts

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.


  • The pending applications are disposed of.
  • The tenant’s counsel requested for time to vacate the premises if required.
  • The tenant is granted time till 31.01.2021 to vacate and hand over the premises.
  • The tenant must file an undertaking to vacate and hand over possession by the mentioned date.
  • The order dated 19.01.2011 in Rent Control Original Petition No.43/2004 is restored.
  • The High Court’s order dated 06.03.2017 in CRP (NPD) No 3754/2013 and MP No. 1/2013 is set aside.
  • The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.


Case Number: C.A. No.-007546-007547 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *