The Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi, has upheld an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of tenanted premises for the business requirement of the son of the landlady.

The High Court , while dismissing the revision petition, had held that there is no law which suggests that if a landlord/landlady requires the premises for running business of his/her young son who is an MBA graduate and is already engaged in some other business, he is acting malafidely and thus, no relief should be granted to him/her.

The high court had also rejected the argument that the since the son is already a director in the family company, there is no bona fide need of the tenanted premises. With regard to plea of alternative premises, the High Court had observed: “It is not law that a petition for bona fide necessity does not lie because the husband of the landlady, who is carrying on a business on a premise,s must stop that business for a son who wants to open a new business, more so when the tenanted premises are more suitable being on the main road and in a valuable market.”

An apex court bench comprising Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and Justice R Banumathi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the tenant, observed: “The high court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj & Anr Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014 (6) SCALE 572 to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to from which shop her son should start the business from.”

Read the Judgment here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation