Landlords Have the Right to Decide Which Rental Property to Reclaim, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that landlords have the authority to determine which portion of their rented property they wish to reclaim for personal use. This verdict is significant for both landlords and tenants across the country.
Renting out properties is a common practice in India, providing landlords with a steady source of income. However, disputes often arise when tenants refuse to vacate the premises after their lease expires or when the owner needs the property for personal reasons. Addressing such an issue, the Supreme Court made a crucial observation, clarifying that landlords have the sole right to decide which part of their rented property should be reclaimed for their needs. Tenants cannot argue that the landlord owns other properties and should use those instead.
According to a report by Live Law, the Supreme Court stated, "The law regarding tenant eviction is well established. A landlord must demonstrate a genuine need to reclaim the property, rather than simply a desire to vacate it. However, the landlord is the best judge of which property should be reclaimed to meet their requirements. A tenant has no right to dictate which of the landlord's properties should be vacated to accommodate the stated need in an eviction case."
This ruling came in response to a petition filed by a property owner who sought to evict a tenant to install an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The landlord's request was initially dismissed by the lower court and later upheld by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court, under the bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotishwar Singh, heard the case and provided a decisive ruling in favor of the landlord.
During the hearing, the tenant contended that the landlord owned other properties and could vacate an alternative space instead of the rented premises. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that once the landlord establishes a genuine need for a specific property, tenants cannot insist that an alternative property be used instead.
The court further stated, "Even if the landlord owns multiple properties, once they determine that a particular premises is required for a legitimate purpose—such as installing an ultrasound machine for their two unemployed sons—tenants cannot compel them to choose another location. In this case, the selected premises is most suitable as it is adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological center."
This ruling sets an important precedent, reinforcing the legal rights of landlords in eviction cases while ensuring that tenants cannot challenge a property owner's decision based on convenience.
