**Bombay High Court Holds Landlord as Best Judge of His Own Requirement, Sets Aside Eviction Denial**
*Mumbai:* The Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of the legal heirs of the late landlord Pandurang Tatu Keni, holding that a landlord is the best judge of his own requirement. The court set aside an appellate order that had earlier denied eviction of a tenant from a shop located in Deonar.
—
### Case Background
The case dates back to 1980 when Pandurang Tatu Keni filed a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, seeking eviction of his tenant on multiple grounds, including default, non-user, and personal requirement.
In 1993, Keni amended his plaint, stating that due to a lack of steady income, he wished to use the shop for estate agency work. Additionally, his daughter Charulata, who did not complete matriculation but had tailoring skills, needed the shop for her business.
The trial court, in 1997, accepted the claim, recognising the requirement as genuine and considering comparative hardship in favor of the landlord. Consequently, the court ordered eviction of the tenant.
—
### Appellate Court Reversal and Challenge
The tenant appealed the trial court’s decision. Meanwhile, during the appeal proceedings, Keni passed away in 2000, and Charulata got married in 1999.
Relying on these developments, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decree, holding that the personal requirement no longer survived after Keni’s death and Charulata’s marriage.
Keni’s other daughters challenged this reversal, arguing that the appellate court perversely relied on subsequent events and wrongly criticized the delay in amending pleadings after 13 years. They emphasized that the bona fide requirement did not extinguish with Keni’s demise or Charulata’s marriage, and that the landlord’s testimony was sufficient to establish the need.
—
### High Court Verdict
Justice Milind Sathaye delivered the verdict on September 23, siding with Keni’s daughters. The court observed that the business requirement of a shop cannot be equated with residential premises.
The appellate court’s conclusion that the landlord’s wish to start an estate agency was “not believable” was described as perverse. Justice Sathaye highlighted that the landlord had satisfactorily explained the inconvenience of running the business from his residence and the need for his daughter to operate tailoring work on the mezzanine floor.
The Court stated, “If this is not sufficient for the landlord to prove his bona fide requirement, I wonder what more is required.”
—
### Consideration of Comparative Hardship
Regarding comparative hardship, the High Court noted the tenant had already relocated his ration shop to another location and admitted to not making efforts to find alternative premises.
The trial court’s assessment that hardship tilted in favor of the landlord was upheld by the High Court.
—
### Final Outcome
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court’s 2000 order, and confirmed the eviction of the tenant.
However, on the tenant’s request, the Court stayed the operation of its order for four weeks to allow time for transition.
—
For more information on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai and its surrounding regions, please visit: [https://budgetproperties.in/](https://budgetproperties.in/)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bombay-hc-upholds-landlords-bona-fide-requirement-restores-eviction-order-for-deonar-shop