The Supreme Court has said that it is up to the landlord to decide which part of the rented premises he should vacate to fulfil his needs.
Add informalnewz.com as a Preferred Source
People across the country rent their properties. This gives them monthly income, with which they run their household. But many times the tenants do not easily vacate the house or the premises where they are living on rent. If you also rent your house or any other property, then the Supreme Court has made an important comment in a case, which is very important for both the landlord and the tenant to know. During the hearing of a case, the Supreme Court has said that the landlord will decide which part of the rented premises he should vacate to fulfill his needs. The tenant cannot refuse to vacate the house on the grounds that the landlord also has other properties and he can fulfill his needs from them.
“The law is well settled regarding eviction of a tenant from the premises on the basis of genuine need of the landlord. The need must be genuine rather than a mere desire to vacate the premises. The landlord is the best judge to decide as to which of his property should be vacated to meet his particular need. The tenant has no role in deciding which of his property should be vacated by the landlord for his need alleged in the eviction suit,” the Supreme Court said, reports Live Law.
A house owner had filed a petition in the Supreme Court that he needs to get an ultrasound machine installed for his two unemployed sons and due to this need he has to vacate the house from the tenant. This was rejected by the lower court and then the High Court upheld the same decision. This case was heard in the Supreme Court by a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotishwar Singh.
During the hearing in the court, the tenant argued that the landlord has other properties and he can get the other property vacated and use it instead of his house. The Supreme Court rejected this argument of the tenant. The court said that even once the landlord’s actual need is fulfilled, the tenant cannot force the landlord by demanding to vacate any other property on the basis of his convenience.
“The landlord in this case may be having some other properties but once he has decided to vacate the suit premises for the genuine need of installing Ultrasound Machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be compelled to initiate such proceedings against other tenants when, at first glance, it appears that this place is the most suitable place for installing Ultrasound Machine because it is situated next to a Medical Clinic and a Pathological Centre”, the Supreme Court said.
