The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord is not obligated to justify the selection of a specific city while seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The observation came while dismissing a tenant’s appeal against an eviction decree granted by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
The bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi noted that the landlord had established a bona fide requirement of the premises for her elder son, who was pursuing a Company Secretary course. The court remarked that the landlord and her son are the best judges of their requirement and that their decision to pursue the course while residing in Indore did not necessitate further justification. The bench stated: 'In fact, once it was established by the plaintiff that her son is pursuing the course of Company Secretary, then if the plaintiff and her son finds it suitable to pursue the course while living at Indore it is their choice and they are the best judge of their requirement.'
The suit was filed by the landlord seeking eviction, possession, and arrears of rent for a house situated in Khajrana, Indore. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to the tenant on January 18, 2003, at a monthly rent of ₹1,100 pursuant to a rent note. The landlord alleged irregular rent payment and illegal electricity usage by the tenant, which led to an electricity theft case. The landlord pleaded a bona fide requirement of the premises, citing her husband’s hypertension and impending retirement, and her elder son’s pursuit of the Company Secretary Course with intent to continue his education in Indore. The landlord also referred to the educational plans of her younger son.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s claims, including the rate and commencement of tenancy. The tenant asserted that the tenancy had commenced in 1998 at a monthly rent of ₹60, with rent being regularly paid. The tenant further challenged the bona fide requirement, arguing that no necessity was shown for the landlord to reside in Indore. The tenant contended that an oral agreement to sell was entered into in 2009 for a consideration of ₹3 lakhs, of which ₹1.5 lakhs were allegedly paid in the presence of witnesses. It was argued that the eviction proceedings were instituted to avoid performance of this alleged agreement.
The trial court decreed the suit, directing the tenant to vacate the premises within two months. It ordered payment of arrears of rent amounting to ₹1.04 lakh and payment of rent at ₹1,100 per month from August 1, 2024, until delivery of vacant possession. The first appellate court affirmed the decree on March 12, 2025. The tenant then approached the High Court in a second appeal.
The counsel for the appellant/tenant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the bona fide need of the plaintiff was proved. It was submitted that there was a discrepancy in the documents produced to show the education of the elder son and that the documents did not establish his admission to the course. The counsel further argued that no necessity was demonstrated for the landlord to reside in Indore.
The bench observed that the tenant’s argument proceeded on the premise that the landlord was required to establish why the son could not pursue his course from another location. The court held that once the landlord had established that her son was pursuing a company secretary course, the decision to pursue the course while residing in Indore was a matter of choice for the landlord and her son. The bench also considered the landlord’s claim that the premises were required in connection with her husband’s medical treatment. The court noted that there was no dispute that her husband was undergoing treatment and observed that if the landlord wishes to reside in Indore for the purpose of obtaining better treatment for her husband, such a requirement can be characterised as bona fide.
The court further noted that although the alleged oral agreement to sell was entered into in 2009, the tenant failed to institute a specific performance suit even by 2026. On this basis, the bench dismissed the appeal. The case is titled Saleem Quraeshi v Saina BI and others, SA-914-2025, with citation 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 328. The appellant was represented by Advocate Arjun Pathak, and the respondent by Advocate Pushpendra Singh Chauhan.