A tenant’s opinion on where a landlord should set up shop carries no legal weight. The Supreme Court has drawn that line clearly, ruling that a tenant cannot nudge—or nudge harder—the landlord to start a business from some other property of the tenant’s choosing.
The decision came while allowing an appeal by a Mumbai landlord and overturning a Bombay High Court order that had stalled an eviction decree. The dispute centred on a ground-floor commercial unit in Kamathipura, Nagpada, which the landlord sought to reclaim to establish a business for his daughter-in-law.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had accepted the landlord’s claim of genuine need and ordered eviction. The High Court, however, stepped in at the revision stage and reworked the entire factual record, ultimately concluding that the requirement was not bona fide. That intervention did not sit well with the Supreme Court.
The Bench held that the High Court had wandered beyond its limited revisional role. When two courts have already returned concurrent findings, the revisional court cannot conduct a forensic, evidence-by-evidence reassessment unless those findings are perverse or plainly unlawful. Neither flaw existed here.
On the core issue—whether the landlord’s need was real—the Court noted that the landlord had sought a specific, commercially suitable space on the ground floor. The remaining portions of the building were residential, making them unsuitable for the proposed business. That distinction mattered. The tenant’s suggestion that other spaces could be repurposed was brushed aside.
The tenant also pointed to the landlord securing a commercial electricity connection for another room during the case. That, the Court said, did not dilute the stated requirement or convert alternatives into obligations.
Reaffirming settled law, the Court relied on earlier precedent to underline a simple principle: the choice of premises for a business belongs to the landlord, not the tenant. A tenant cannot substitute the landlord’s judgment with their own assessment of convenience or suitability.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s detailed reappraisal of evidence was “ex facie without jurisdiction” in a revisional proceeding. With no legal infirmity in the lower courts’ findings, the eviction decree was restored.
Taking note of the tenant’s long occupation—nearly fifty years—the Court granted time until June 30, 2026, to vacate. The reprieve came with conditions: clearing rent arrears within a month, continuing to pay monthly rent, and filing the usual undertaking before the High Court. Any slip would allow immediate execution of the decree.
