Raj HC restores eviction decree, holds bonafide need of one family member survives even if another’s requirement is met

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a landlord seeks eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for multiple family members, satisfaction of the need of one member does not extinguish the independent requirement of another.

The Court restored an eviction decree in favour of the landlord, setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which had reversed the findings of the Rent Tribunal on the ground of absence of bonafide necessity.

The writ petition, titled S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18360/2016, Pratap Singh Hada vs Rajkumar Jhamb, challenged the judgment dated October 6, 2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, whereby the eviction petition filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was dismissed.

The petitioner-landlord had sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from a commercial shop on multiple grounds, including default, nuisance, sub-letting, and bonafide requirement for establishing business for his two sons.

The Rent Tribunal, Kota, had allowed the eviction petition only on the ground of bonafide requirement of one son, while rejecting other grounds. However, the Appellate Rent Tribunal reversed the decree, holding that the alleged requirement was not genuine in view of availability of alternative premises and other surrounding circumstances.

The central issue before the High Court was whether the Appellate Rent Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding of bonafide need recorded by the Rent Tribunal.

The High Court held that the approach adopted by the Appellate Rent Tribunal was legally unsustainable and based on misreading of evidence.

A key observation of the Court was that when eviction is sought for more than one family member, the requirement must be examined independently, and the satisfaction of one requirement does not automatically negate the other.

The Court observed that merely because one son had obtained possession of another shop during the pendency of the proceedings, it could not be presumed that the requirement of the second son stood satisfied.

Rejecting the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court held that such an inference was “perverse and illegal” as it ignored the factual position that only one son was utilizing the alternative premises.

The Court further held that the sale of three shops by the landlord prior to filing of the eviction petition could not be used to doubt the bonafide requirement, as the sale had taken place in 2003, whereas the eviction petition was filed in 2005.

It was observed that a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord should deal with his property or conduct his business, and prior transactions do not invalidate a genuine requirement arising subsequently.

The Court also rejected the reliance placed by the Appellate Tribunal on compromises entered into by the landlord with other tenants, holding that such compromises, not being based on bonafide requirement, cannot be used to discredit the landlord’s present claim.

The Bench emphasized that bonafide requirement need not be a dire or compelling necessity and that even a reasonable and genuine need is sufficient to sustain an eviction decree.

The Court further noted that statutory safeguards exist for tenants under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, including the right to seek restoration of possession if the premises are re-let within three years of eviction.

Holding the findings of the Appellate Rent Tribunal to be perverse and legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the eviction decree passed by the Rent Tribunal.

The Court directed the respondent-tenant to vacate the premises, while granting six months’ time to do so in accordance with law.

Case Title

Pratap Singh Hada vs Rajkumar Jhamb

Case Number

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18360/2016

Court

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench

Hon’ble Justice Bipin Gupta

Date of Order

March 10, 2026