Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotiswar Singh laid down the law on “bonafide requirement” for eviction of tenants under the Rent Control Act. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehsan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehsan & Ors. Case?   

• The Appellant is the owner and landlord of a house in Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand. 
• The Appellant filed Eviction suit against the respondents-tenant on grounds of: 
  • Default in payment of rent 
  • Personal need of the premises to install an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons 
• The court of first instance decreed the suit on 15th July, 2006, accepting the landlord's claim of bona fide need but dismissed it on the ground of default in payment of rent. 
• The First Appellate Court reversed this judgment, which was affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Second Appeal No.317/2006. 
• The appellant-landlord has not challenged the dismissal on grounds of rent default but has confined his appeal only to the bona fide need aspect. 
• The appellant claims he has proven: 
  • His capability to purchase an ultrasound machine 
  • An annual income of Rs.4,00,000/- 
  • The suitability of the premises (adjacent to a medical clinic and pathology center) 
• In a previous case, there was a partial eviction from the same property, and the landlord re-let that portion to another person. 
• The respondents-tenant argue that: 
  • A previous compromise agreement allows them to occupy three pucca rooms as "tenant in perpetuity" 
  • The landlord has sufficient alternative accommodation available 
  • The landlord misused the previous partial eviction by letting the vacated premises to someone else at higher rent 
• The appeal is now before a higher court for consideration. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the eviction of tenant from the suit premises in the present facts is based on bonafide requirement. 
  • The need under bonafide requirement in this case has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. 
  • The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. 
  • The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. 
• Further, the Court held that the the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. 
• Further, the Court held that the suit premises are the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. 
  • The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. 
  • Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family’s income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord in the facts of the case stands duly established. 
• Further, a point was put forward that the two unemployed sons have no expertise/training to run ultrasound machine. 
  • The Court held with regard to this that it is common knowledge that these days medical devices such as ultrasound machines are installed and established and are ordinarily run by the technicians or the medical experts who are engaged for the said purpose. 
  • The person establishing such devices or ultrasound machines himself need not have any expertise in running the same. 
• Further, the party also took note of the compromise entered into between them which provided that the appellant landlord had agreed that the respondents-tenant shall continue to be a tenant of the appellant with respect to three pucca rooms which have been re-constructed by the appellant-landlord after demolishing the portion under tenancy.   
• With regard to the above compromise the Court held that there is no clause in the compromise deed which provides that the appellant landlord will not initiate any proceeding for eviction against the respondent-tenant in the future. 
• Therefore, the Court held that it cannot be said that the above proceedings are not maintainable. 
• Thus, the Court held that the appellant- landlord has proved his bona fide need for suit premises.

What is the Provision for Eviction Under Rent Control Act? 

• Section 19 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 provides for eviction of tenant. 
• A tenant cannot be evicted except by Controller's order, despite any contrary contract or law. 
• Valid grounds for eviction include: 
  • Breach of tenancy conditions 
  • Unauthorized subletting 
  • Ceasing employment (if occupying as employee) 
  • Material deterioration of building due to tenant's negligence 
  • Landlord reasonably requiring building for personal/beneficiary occupation (Bonafide Requirement) 
• Controller may allow partial eviction if: 
  • Reasonable requirement can be satisfied by partial eviction 
  • Tenant agrees to this arrangement 
  • Standard rent will be proportionately fixed for remaining portion 
• Important clarifications: 
  • "Landlord" does not include agents 
  • When multiple buildings are involved, landlord has right to choose which building they prefer, and tenants cannot challenge this preference 
• These provisions are subject to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 31.