The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a long-settled principle in tenancy law: once a landlord proves a genuine need for their property, the tenant cannot suggest alternatives or decide what accommodation should be “good enough” for the landlord.
In a judgment delivered on December 2, 2025, the Court restored an eviction order relating to a commercial property in Mumbai’s Kamathipura – Nagpada area, overturning a Bombay High Court ruling that had earlier favoured the tenant. The tenant has been granted time until June 30, 2026 to vacate the premises.
What the dispute was about
The case concerned a ground-floor shop that had been rented out for commercial use for decades. The landlord sought eviction in 2016, stating that the premises were required for the bona fide business needs of his daughter-in-law.
The tenant resisted the eviction, arguing that:
- The landlord had other premises available
- A room on the ground floor had a commercial electricity connection obtained after the eviction suit was filed
- Alternative accommodation could be used instead of the tenanted shop
How the courts ruled – step by step
Trial Court
After examining evidence and pleadings, the Trial Court accepted the landlord’s claim of genuine need and ordered eviction.
First Appellate Court
The tenant appealed, but the Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court and confirmed the eviction order.
Bombay High Court
The tenant then approached the High Court in revision. The High Court set aside the eviction order after re-examining the evidence in detail, effectively reassessing the facts already decided by two courts.
Supreme Court
The landlord challenged this before the Supreme Court – and succeeded.
Why the Supreme Court intervened
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited powers in a revision petition.
When two courts have already recorded concurrent findings of fact, the High Court cannot reopen the evidence unless there is a clear error of law or lack of jurisdiction. That was not the case here.
The Court observed that the High Court had undertaken a “microscopic scrutiny” of the evidence, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.
Key legal principles reaffirmed
1. Tenant cannot dictate alternatives to the landlord
The Court made it clear that a tenant cannot defeat an eviction claim by proposing other premises or questioning the landlord’s choice of property or business location.
If the landlord establishes a bona fide requirement, the tenant’s opinion on suitability is irrelevant.
The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi (2016) to reinforce this position.
2. Subsequent changes don’t nullify genuine need
The tenant argued that a commercial electricity connection taken after filing the eviction suit weakened the landlord’s claim.
The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that such developments during litigation do not, by themselves, invalidate an already established bona fide requirement.
3. High Court’s role in revision is limited
The judgment underlines that revisional jurisdiction is not an opportunity for a fresh trial. Unless the lower courts’ findings are ex facie illegal or without authority, they should not be disturbed.
Final outcome
- The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order
- The eviction orders passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were restored
- The tenant has been given time until June 30, 2026 to vacate, subject to:
- Payment of rent arrears within one month
- Continued payment of monthly rent
- Filing a written undertaking before the Bombay High Court within three weeks
- Not creating any third-party rights in the property
- Payment of rent arrears within one month
Failure to comply allows the landlord to execute the eviction decree immediately.
Why this ruling matters
This judgment strengthens certainty for landlords facing prolonged litigation despite favourable findings from lower courts. It also sends a clear message that eviction cases based on genuine need cannot be derailed by hypothetical alternatives suggested by tenants or by re-litigation of facts at the revision stage.
For tenants, the ruling clarifies the limits of defence: questioning the landlord’s business judgment or property choice is not a valid strategy once bona fide need is established.