Bombay High Court: In a petition challenging the appellate order that had set aside the trial court’s decree of eviction, a Single Judge Bench of M.M. Sathaye, J., held that tenancy rights do not automatically end with demolition of the premises and continue to subsist. However, the Court emphasised that the landlord’s bona fide requirement and the tenant’s non-user must be assessed as on the date of filing of the suit. Since the landlord had established genuine need and the tenant’s prolonged non-use was proved, the Court restored the trial court’s eviction decree on both grounds.
Background
The landlord filed a suit for eviction under Sections 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), asserting that the premises were required for personal use after retirement and that the tenant had not used the premises for more than six months without reasonable cause. It was alleged that the premises were kept locked, the roof had been removed illegally, and the structure was dilapidated.
The tenant denied non-user, claimed the premises were being used as a godown, and argued that the dilapidated condition itself was a reasonable cause for non-use. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court set aside the decree, holding that demolition of the premises extinguished the landlord’s claim.
The landlord contended that he was the best judge of his requirements, that the tenant had other premises licensed to a bank, and that the suit premises had remained unused for 16-17 years. However, the tenant argued that tenancy rights survive demolition, that the landlord’s claim was not bona fide given the dilapidated condition, and that non-user was justified.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that once the tenancy is created in respect of the premises in the building standing on the land, it is the building and the land which are both components of the subject matter of demise, and destruction of the building alone does not determine the tenancy when the land, which is the site of the building, continues to exist. The Court referred to the principle enunciated in Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v. Kumbhar Sons Hotel (P) Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 1 and held that the tenancy right of the respondent subsists and it cannot be accepted that because the suit premises are demolished, nothing survives for consideration. However, when it is held that despite demolition of the suit premises, the tenancy survives, the Court observed that the rights and liabilities of both the parties, i.e., landlord as well as tenant, also survive for making rival claims on the basis of the provisions of the MRC Act under which the suit was filed.
The Court emphasised that the provisions of the MRC Act, as applicable to the parties on the date of the suit, shall continue to apply and therefore both the landlord and the tenant shall be governed by the provisions of the MRC Act, and the ground of bona fide requirement can be considered on merits even after demolition of the suit premises. The Court referred to D. Sasi Kumar v. Soundararajan, (2019) 9 SCC 282, wherein it was held that once the landlord establishes bona fide requirement on the date of institution of the suit, the same subsists irrespective of delay in adjudication, and declining relief to the landlord on the ground of delay is impermissible, as it would encourage tenants to protract litigation.
The Court noted that unless the requirement is completely eclipsed or extinguished, a suit for eviction cannot be dismissed. It was further observed in S.R. Babu v. T.K. Vasudevan, (2001) 8 SCC 110, Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, and Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs) v. Traders & Agencies, (1996) 5 SCC 344, that it is no more res integra that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and it is not for the tenant or the Court to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he should use his own premises.
The Court highlighted that the demolition of the suit premises does not ipso facto annul the requirement of the landlord. Therefore, the Court emphasised that the landlord has clearly established the requirement as pleaded and subsequent developments are not such as to completely eclipse or extinguish the bona fide requirement.
The Court also observed that there is mala fides on the part of the tenant in an effort to retain the suit premises at all costs, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the tenant applied to the Court for permission to carry out repairs if the same were not being carried out by the landlord, and in that view of the matter, there is no merit in the argument of the tenant that the dilapidated condition of the premises itself is a reasonable cause for non-user.
The Court concluded that the appellate court’s findings were perverse and amounted to miscarriage of justice. The Court quashed the appellate judgment, restored the trial court’s decree of eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement and non-user, and rejected the tenant’s plea for stay.
[Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti v. Govindram Shobharam, Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 2025, decided on 20-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Abhishek T. Ingale a/w T. S. Ingale
For the Respondent: Ashutosh M. Kulkarni i/b Sarthak Diwan