Landlord Knows Best: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction on Genuine Housing Need

The Calcutta High Court has clearly stated that a landlord alone can decide what kind of residential or business accommodation is reasonably required by the family. Courts, it said, cannot tell a person how to live or what standard of accommodation is sufficient.

Justice Sugato Majumdar made these observations while dismissing a second appeal filed by a tenant and upholding an eviction decree passed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The eviction was granted on the ground of “reasonable requirement” of the landlord.

The Court explained that the idea of reasonable requirement cannot be judged mechanically or through rigid rules. Family needs change with time, circumstances, and living conditions. What may have been acceptable earlier may no longer be reasonable later. For this reason, the landlord’s own assessment of need carries primary importance.

The case arose from a suit filed by the landlords seeking eviction of a tenant on several grounds, including non-payment of rent, nuisance, damage to the property, and genuine requirement of the premises for personal use. The landlords had purchased the property through registered sale deeds and claimed that the tenant was a monthly tenant who had defaulted in rent and caused disturbance by operating machinery in the premises.

The Trial Court had dismissed the eviction suit. It reasoned that since the landlords were earlier living in a staircase room at the time the premises were let out, they could not later claim a need for better accommodation. The Trial Court also doubted whether the disputed room was suitable for living.

However, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and granted eviction, holding that the landlords had successfully proved their reasonable requirement. The tenant then approached the High Court in a second appeal.

Rejecting the tenant’s arguments, the High Court held that the Trial Court had made an unreasonable assumption. Merely because the landlords earlier lived in a staircase room does not mean they must continue to live in substandard conditions forever. Law does not expect a landlord to remain confined to poor accommodation simply because it was once accepted out of necessity.

The Court also clarified that reports prepared by an Advocate Commissioner cannot decide or “create” a landlord’s need. The real test is whether the requirement is genuine. Unless the need is shown to be dishonest, imaginary, or grossly exaggerated, the landlord’s assessment must be respected.

Relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court of India, the High Court reiterated that no law prevents a landlord from enjoying the benefits of their own property. The availability of alternative accommodation matters only if that accommodation is reasonably suitable. The mere existence of another property does not automatically defeat a claim of bona fide requirement.

Finding no legal error in the appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the eviction decree. The tenant was directed to vacate and hand over possession of the premises within 60 days. If this is not done, the landlords are free to initiate execution proceedings.

Case Title: Ratan Karmakar & Ors. v. Smt. Chaina Das & Ors.