The Supreme Court has disapproved of the tendency among lower courts to look only into necessity in settling landlord and tenant cases.
A bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Ranjana Prakash Desai allowed an appeal filed by Mohd Ayub and others against an order passed by the Uttaranchal High Court.
The High Court had allowed the appellant to get possession of just one room from his tenant Mukesh Chand, who occupied two shops and two rooms belonging to the appellant, at monthly rent of Rs 35.
Ayub wanted to take possession of shops as well as rooms as his three sons aged 28, 23 and 19 years wanted to start a general merchant and wholesale egg business from both the places. He also contended that his family of 13 members required the possession of rooms as well for residential purpose.
Chand, on his part, claimed he ran a photography business from the shops and would suffer loss if evicted from the place. He also claimed that Ayub’s family was well-off and could buy another property.
“It is well settled the landlord’s requirement need not be a dire necessity. The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start,” the Bench said.