Landlord Has Exclusive Right To Choose Property For Bona Fide Requirement, Tenant Can't Dictate Alternative Arrangements: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that in eviction matters based on bona fide necessity, the landlord is the best judge to decide which of their properties is required to meet their needs, and the tenant cannot dictate alternative arrangements.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while rejecting the tenant's plea that alternative premises were available, stated, “The law with regard to the eviction of tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of landlord is well settled. The need 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 for dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.”

The ruling was delivered in a Second Appeal arising from a Title Eviction Suit, whereby the trial court had decreed eviction in favor of the landlord, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court in a Civil Title Appeal.

The dispute concerned a rental unit that was leased to a tenant, who opposed the eviction action on the basis that the landlord's request was not one in good faith and that partial eviction could be done to allow for the accommodation of the landlord. The trial court, however, held that the landlord's assertion was valid and that partial eviction could not be allowed. The appellate court agreed.

The tenant at the second appeal also objected on grounds of limitation, waiver, and estoppel that the lateness on the part of the landlord in lodging the proceedings excluded the claim. The tenant further argued that the landlord had other accommodation to his requirements.

The High Court, rejecting such submissions, made it clear that where a decree for eviction was passed under Section 14 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, the statutory bar under Section 14(8) is activated and no second appeal is entertained. The Court made it unmistakably clear that only in a second appeal, substantial questions of law could be raised if and when they were properly framed and warranted under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court concluded that both the trial court and appellate court had properly evaluated the evidence, including the tenant's admission that partial eviction could meet the landlord's need and that the tenant had alternative premises available for residence and business.

Observing that the tenant had prolonged litigation for over a decade despite concurrent findings on facts and law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, vacated the interim stay, and directed the trial court records to be returned.

Case Title: Namita Bose vs Satyanarain Prasad Chourasia

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 22

Click here to Read Judgement