Bombay HC rejects tenants’ plea against eviction, says owner’s needs genuine
The bench of justice Dama Seshadri Naidu was hearing a plea filed by a few tenants challenging the eviction orders issued against them by the trial and appellate court.
The Bombay high court (HC) recently held that if there is genuine need of a property by the landlord, the tenants cannot plead against eviction orders on grounds of suppression of facts by the landlord, abatement of suit proceedings or change of circumstances.
The bench of justice Dama Seshadri Naidu was hearing a plea filed by a few tenants challenging the eviction orders issued against them by the trial and appellate court.
The tenants were asked to vacate their properties after the heirs of the landlord sought the use of property for themselves. The eviction proceedings were initiated in 1986 and the two courts had passed orders favouring the landlord in 2016. Aggrieved by the eviction orders, the tenants had approached the high court.
In the recent hearing, on request of tenants, the court suspended the operation of the order for eight weeks to allow them to approach the Supreme Court.
The advocate for the tenants said the original landlord and tenants had passed away and legal heirs had succeeded both. In 1986, the landlord’s heirs had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants which were mala fide, as they did not need the entire property. The advocate said two heirs had secured government jobs and did not need the premise.
The advocate said the heirs of the landlord could have constructed alternate premises on vacant land adjoining the structure. In light of these two submissions the tenants sought revision of the lower court orders.
However, the advocate for the landlord argued the tenants had no right to dictate as to what they did with their property.
The advocate said as the bona fide need of the landlords heirs had been amply proved, the revision application should be rejected.
After hearing the submissions the bench held as there were many children of the tenant and though two got employment did not defeat the bona fide need of the remaining family which has increased manifold since the suit for eviction was filed in 1986. In light of this, the bench dismissed the revision application.