He Was Seventy-Four When He Sued. His Son Still Waits For The Shop.
The trial court ordered eviction, the appellate court reversed it, and the High Court has restored the eviction on both subletting and genuine need.
The Court held subletting was proved by the landlord — the tenant admitted in cross-examination that a portion inducted by the original tenant is now used for restaurant business — and set aside the appellate findings. On need, a landlord cannot be dictated how to use his own premises, nor asked whether he has funds to start or expand a business. The appellate decree was quashed and the trial court's eviction decree confirmed.
- The admission came in cross-examination, which is what proved the subletting.
- A dual purpose is still a purpose — the premises were wanted for the son's business and his residence.
- Retirement benefits are no answer. Nor is spare building potential on the landlord's own floor.
- The tenant never looked for other premises during the suit, which told against her.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 2018
- Case
- Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 2018
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Revision allowed; appellate decree set aside and eviction decree confirmed
Subletting
On the evidence on record the appellate court had set aside the trial court's findings.
The tenant admitted during cross-examination that the fourth defendant had been inducted by the original tenant, and that the portion is now used by her for restaurant business. That proves subletting.
The ground of subletting was therefore held proved by the landlord, and the appellate findings quashed and set aside.
Bona fide requirement
The landlord's case was that he required the premises for his son's business and for his son's residence — a dual purpose. When the suit was filed he was 74 and living on the first floor with his wife, three unmarried daughters and one unmarried son; another son was married and living separately.
The tenant's answer was that the landlord had received good retirement benefits, and that there was enough building potential left in the premises for him to construct an additional room.
Though the landlord and his wife have since died, his son and three unmarried sisters live on the first floor in a four-room flat. A landlord cannot be dictated how he should use his own premises, and cannot be asked whether he has funds to start or expand his own business. The tenant, meanwhile, had converted an individual restaurant and bar business into a partnership of four, and it was not her case that she had tried to find other premises during the suit.
Applying Maganlal v. Nanasaheb, the ground of bona fide requirement was also answered in the landlord's favour.
The order
The revision application was allowed. The appellate court's judgment and decree were quashed and set aside, and the trial court's decree confirmed.
On the tenant's request, implementation and execution of the judgment was stayed for four weeks.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a tenant argue the landlord does not need the premises?
Not by questioning his funds or how he chooses to use his own property. The Court held he cannot be dictated to.
How is subletting proved?
Here by the tenant's own admission in cross-examination that a portion was inducted by the original tenant and is used for another's business.
Proving an eviction on subletting and need
- Aim cross-examination at who was inducted and by whom; an admission there proves the ground.
- Plead the need concretely — which family member, for what, and where they live now.
- Expect the tenant to raise the landlord's means; the law does not require him to justify them.
- Ask what the tenant did to find alternative premises during the litigation.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 2018, decided 7 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in