Introduction:

In Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1253], the Supreme Court of India revisited two well-settled principles of rent control jurisprudence: first, that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which premises should be considered suitable for the landlord’s bona fide requirement; and second, that a revisional court cannot act as a second appellate court by reappreciating evidence when concurrent findings of fact exist. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had overturned concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of the landlord. The Supreme Court, allowing the landlord’s appeal, restored the eviction decree and clarified the contours of bona fide requirement and revisional jurisdiction, while balancing equities by granting time to the tenant to vacate the premises.

Factual Background:

The dispute concerned a non-residential, commercial premises situated on the ground floor of a building located at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The respondent-tenant had been in occupation of the said premises for nearly five decades. The appellant-landlord instituted an eviction suit seeking recovery of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement, asserting that the premises were required for starting a business for his daughter-in-law. It was the landlord’s specific case that the ground-floor premises, being commercial in nature and having direct access, were most suitable for the proposed business activity.

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence, accepted the landlord’s contention and decreed eviction. The First Appellate Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction, re-examined the material on record and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court, affirming the decree of eviction. Both courts recorded a categorical finding that the landlord’s requirement was genuine, bona fide, and reasonable.

Aggrieved, the tenant approached the Bombay High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, undertook a detailed scrutiny of the evidence and reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the landlord had failed to establish bona fide requirement. This reversal prompted the landlord to approach the Supreme Court.

Arguments on Behalf of the Landlord:

On behalf of the landlord, it was contended that the High Court had clearly exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reassessing evidence in minute detail and substituting its own view for that of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It was argued that revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from patent illegality.

The landlord emphasized that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently held that the requirement of the premises for starting a business for the daughter-in-law was bona fide. These findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and could not have been interfered with in revision.

On the question of alternative accommodation, the landlord argued that the tenant’s attempt to suggest other premises, including upper floors of the building or other spaces allegedly available to the landlord, was legally untenable. It was submitted that the upper floors were residential in nature and could not be treated as suitable alternatives for a commercial business. The landlord further contended that it is his prerogative to decide where and how he or his family members should conduct business, and the tenant cannot compel him to adjust his requirement based on the tenant’s perception of suitability.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi [(2016) 10 SCC 209], wherein it was held that the tenant cannot dictate the terms of the landlord’s bona fide requirement or insist upon alternative accommodation suggested by the tenant.

Arguments on Behalf of the Tenant:

The tenant, on the other hand, sought to justify the High Court’s interference by arguing that the landlord’s requirement was not bona fide and was merely a pretext to evict a long-standing tenant. It was contended that the landlord had other space available in the same building and that during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord had even obtained a commercial electricity connection for another room, indicating that suitable alternative accommodation existed.

The tenant argued that the landlord had failed to establish why the specific ground-floor premises alone were necessary for the proposed business and why other available spaces could not be utilized. According to the tenant, the High Court was justified in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that the statutory protection afforded to tenants was not diluted by accepting a purportedly weak claim of bona fide requirement.

It was further submitted that given the tenant’s long occupation of nearly fifty years, the courts ought to have adopted a stricter standard in assessing the landlord’s claim and should not have lightly ordered eviction.

Issues for Consideration:

The Supreme Court was essentially called upon to determine:

(i) Whether the Bombay High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact;

(ii) Whether the landlord’s requirement for the ground-floor commercial premises for starting a business for his daughter-in-law was bona fide; and

(iii) Whether the tenant could suggest alternative accommodation and challenge the landlord’s choice of premises.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning:

The Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi undertook a careful examination of the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the principles governing bona fide requirement under rent control laws. At the outset, the Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and does not permit a “microscopic reappreciation” of evidence. When two courts have concurrently recorded findings of fact, interference in revision is justified only if such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a manifest error of law.

Applying this principle, the Court held that the High Court’s approach of re-examining pleadings and evidence in detail and substituting its own conclusions was “ex facie without jurisdiction.” The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be characterized as perverse or illegal.

On the question of bona fide requirement, the Supreme Court noted that the landlord had specifically pleaded and proved that the ground-floor premises were required for starting a business for his daughter-in-law. The Court found merit in the landlord’s contention that the ground-floor location, being commercial in nature, was suitable for business purposes, whereas the upper floors of the building were residential and could not be treated as viable alternatives.

Rejecting the tenant’s argument regarding availability of other space and the obtaining of a commercial electricity connection during the pendency of proceedings, the Court held that such factors do not ipso facto negate the landlord’s bona fide requirement. The Court observed that bona fide requirement has to be assessed on the basis of the landlord’s genuine need and intention, not on hypothetical alternatives suggested by the tenant.

Crucially, the Court reaffirmed the settled position of law that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord which accommodation should be treated as suitable or compel the landlord to start a business from premises suggested by the tenant. Relying on Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi, the Court underscored that it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide the manner and location of his business or that of his family members. The tenant’s role is limited to testing the genuineness of the requirement, not to prescribing alternatives.

The Court encapsulated this principle by observing:

“The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein.”

High Court’s Excess of Jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the High Court’s manner of interference. It held that the revisional court had acted as if it were exercising appellate jurisdiction by reassessing evidence in minute detail and drawing its own conclusions. Such an approach, the Court held, undermines the finality attached to concurrent findings of fact and is contrary to the statutory limits of revisional power.

The Court emphasized that unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, the revisional court must exercise restraint. In the present case, since the concurrent findings were neither perverse nor without authority of law, the High Court’s interference was unwarranted.

Relief and Directions:

Having found in favour of the landlord, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. However, taking into account the fact that the tenant had been in occupation of the premises for nearly five decades, the Court adopted a balanced approach and granted time until 30 June 2026 to vacate the premises.

This extension was made subject to strict conditions, including payment of arrears of rent within one month, continued payment of monthly rent, and filing of a customary undertaking before the Bombay High Court. The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the landlord to execute the decree forthwith without further delay.