Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The bonafide need of the landlord was to do his own business independently in the suit shop and for that purpose after waiting for 13 years, if he has filed the eviction suit in the year 2000, one fails to understand how the learned trial court could reach to the conclusion that bonafide need does not exist, since he continued to do some work with his brother in the shop named as M/s. Free India Tailors. He was not expected to starve doing nothing and if he managed to make his both ends meet by doing some work with his brother or doing his own work in the first floor room available with him, it could not be said that since his requirements were satisfied, the eviction of suit shop should not be ordered. The business needs of the plaintiff-landlord could possibly be only satisfied properly on the ground floor shop on the main market road i.e. the suit shop and not in the manner as contended by learned counsel for the defendant-tenant in the aforesaid manner.

19. In the opinion of this Court, the learned appellate court has duly given cogent reasons and discussing the entire evidence with regard to bonafide need of the landlord, has found that that such bonafide need existed and, therefore, the eviction was ordered. In para 15, 18 and 19 of the judgment, the learned appellate court has also discussed the issues relating to alternative accommodation, partial eviction and comparative hardship and has found in favour of the landlord and, therefore, reversing the order of the learned trial court, has directed the eviction.

29. Apart from these case laws, recently this Court while dealing with the contentions raised by the respective parties in SB Civil Second Appal No.203/2010 - Om S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 Prakash Bhati vs. LRs. Of Har Kanwar decided on 11.08.2011 in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court held as under:

"9. The Indian Courts have also held similarly that eviction of tenant can be sought for the bonafide need likely to arise in near future. If a party who is aware of the nature of proceedings files an application for eviction on the basis of bona fide requirement which may come into existence in future cannot be punished by refusing to entertain such petition on the ground that the need is not present when he filed the petition. Knowing fully well that a reasonable need may arise in near future and securing eviction decree even though such bonafide need is established may take reasonable time, the landlord can very well initiate the action well in time in view of bonafide need which he envisages, is likely to arise in near future. "A stitch in time saves nine" is a well known quotation and that means to prevent an injury one may take appropriate measures well in time.

Likewise if the landlord is of the opinion that the bonafide need may arise in near future, he may initiate action for eviction of the tenant even prior to actually arising of S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 such need which in course of time would be established before the Court of law and while the decree of eviction is passed, such bonafide need would be clearly before the court of law. While the landlord cannot seek eviction on whims and desire only and need should be bonafide, at the same time, bonafide need need not be absolute, compelling and dire need which if not fulfilled, the landlord should be seen to be suffering misery or irreparable loss. The bonafide need of the landlord lies somewhere in between and it is the landlord, who is the best judge to really assess such need and make his planning and apply to the Court for eviction if landlord is of the opinion that the suit premises would be required for the bonafide need of his or her own; or his or her children or grand- children in near future.