Supreme Court allows eviction and grants possession to landlord on bona fide need while permitting six‑month stay on eviction

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by a landlord seeking recovery of overdue rent and eviction of long‑standing tenants on the ground of bona fide need, while the tenants challenged the landlord’s title and asserted that the Will through which title was claimed was fraudulent.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent orders below and decreed the suit for recovery of rent and eviction on both default of payment and bona fide need. The Court found that the plaintiff had established title through a probated Will and that the tenants, who had entered possession under a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord and had paid rent to him and his son for decades, could not successfully challenge that ownership. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also noted that "the claim of the plaintiff through a Will attains a legal sanctity which could not have been brushed aside by the High Court" and emphasised that "The tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership."

Background The dispute concerned a shop room let in 1953 by Sua Lal via a relinquishment deed to Ramji Das, who thereafter rented the premises to the father of the defendants. After Ramji Das executed a Will on 12.05.1999 bequeathing the shop room to his daughter‑in‑law (the present plaintiff) and died on 07.08.1999, the plaintiff claimed ownership, alleged rent default from January 2000 and sought eviction on bona fide need to expand the family sweets‑and‑savouries business. The defendants admitted long‑continued payment of rent to Ramji Das and thereafter to the plaintiff’s husband, but denied the testator’s title and alleged the Will was fraudulent.

At trial the court doubted the Will and held the plaintiff failed to prove ownership, dismissing the suit. On first appeal the trial court judgment was reversed and the suit was remanded for fresh consideration; subsequent appellate proceedings produced divergent outcomes and, by the time the matter reached this Court, three courts had entered concurrent findings. The plaintiff produced an order of probate dated 09.02.2018 while proceedings were pending in the High Court; the High Court declined to admit the probate application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC because the document had not been produced earlier. This Court observed that probate, though not mandatory, conferred legal sanctity on the Will and could not be disregarded; further the relinquishment deed of 1953 (Exhibit P‑18) and long payment of rent in favour of Ramji Das weighed in favour of the plaintiff. The Court found bona fide need established by the plaintiff’s intention to join and expand the adjacent family business and by the participation of her sons in the trade. Consequently the Court set aside the orders below, decreed the suit, directed recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 until delivery of possession and ordered eviction, while permitting the tenants to remain for six months subject to an undertaking to pay arrears within one month and vacate within six months, with liberty to the plaintiff to seek summary eviction if no undertaking was filed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1099; Civil Appeal (@ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024) Case Title: Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.K. Mody, Senior Counsel