Circuit Bench at Kolhapur rules in favor of landlord Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti, affirming eviction due to tenant's non-use of premises and landlord's need for personal use.
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, presided over by Justice M.M. Sathaye, has ruled in favor of landlord Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti, affirming his right to evict the tenant, M/s. Govindram Shobharam, from the premises based on bona fide personal requirement and non-use by the tenant. The case, originating from Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 2025, was decided on February 20, 2026.
The premises in question, a godown located at City Survey No. 670 in Sangli, had been under the tenancy of M/s. Govindram Shobharam for several decades. However, the landlord sought eviction, asserting that the premises were required for personal use after his retirement, intending to start a business.
The trial court initially decreed eviction, which was later overturned by the District Judge-2, Sangli, in an appeal. The appellate court's decision was based on the demolition of the premises due to its dilapidated state, deeming the landlord's requirement non-existent. The landlord, however, challenged this decision, leading to the current revision application before the High Court.
Justice Sathaye, in his judgment, emphasized that the landlord's bona fide requirement is to be assessed as of the date of the suit's filing. The court noted that the demolition of the premises during litigation did not invalidate the landlord's need or the tenant's non-use. The court found that the tenant had kept the premises locked for an extended period without reasonable cause, thereby establishing tenant's mala fides.
Citing various precedents, including "Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava," the court reiterated that subsequent developments during litigation, such as demolition, do not necessarily nullify the landlord's requirement unless they completely overshadow the need asserted at the outset. The court emphasized that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and tenants cannot dictate the use of the landlord's property.
The judgment also addressed the issue of hardship, noting that the tenant had other premises available and was financially capable of relocating. The court concluded that the tenant's non-use of the premises was not justified, thus supporting the grounds of eviction.
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the appellate court's decision, reinstating the trial court's decree of eviction based on bona fide requirement and non-user. The decision underscores the court's stance on protecting landlords' rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, particularly when supported by genuine personal need and tenant negligence.
Bottom Line:
Landlord's bona fide requirement and tenant's non-user of premises are valid grounds for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Demolition of the rented premises does not annul tenancy rights or extinguish the landlord's bona fide requirement, which must be considered as of the date of the suit.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sections 16(1)(g), 16(1)(n); Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code 1908
