2026 INSC 730, decided on 21 July 2026
What the case was about
This appeal arose from a long-running landlord-tenant dispute over a small shop in Nabha, Punjab, let out at a monthly rent of ₹12.50. Kamla Devi, the landlady, sought eviction of her tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on two grounds: persistent non-payment of rent and a bona fide requirement for herself and her son, Madan Mohan. Both parties have since died, and the litigation is now being pursued by their legal representatives. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana could lawfully overturn concurrent factual findings by the Rent Controller and the first Appellate Authority, and whether the landlord’s claim of genuine personal need remained valid despite the existence of another family shop.
The key facts
Kamla Devi filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Nabha, alleging that the tenant had failed to pay rent and that she and her son needed the shop for their own business. The tenant resisted, claiming that he had tendered the full arrears on 3 June 2003 and that the landlady had accepted the payment. He also disputed the alleged need, arguing that an 80-year-old woman was unlikely to run a business, that another son already operated a business from a different family shop, and that a third shop was vacant or used for storing garbage.
The Rent Controller decreed eviction, finding both non-payment and bona fide requirement proved. The Appellate Authority, Patiala, affirmed that decree. The tenant then moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in revision. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings, holding that Kamla Devi had concealed the existence of the third shop and had not approached the court with clean hands.
The questions before the Court
The Supreme Court considered three principal questions:
- Did the High Court exceed the limits of its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and overturning concurrent findings of fact?
- Was the landlord’s claim of bona fide requirement genuine despite the alleged concealment of a third shop?
- Should the concurrent eviction decrees of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority be restored?
What the Court decided and why
A two-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 6 August 2018, and affirmed the eviction orders of the courts below (para 11).
On revisional jurisdiction: The Court reaffirmed that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate court. Revisional jurisdiction is restricted to examining procedural illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error (para 10.3). It does not empower the High Court to reappreciate evidence or discard concurrent factual findings merely because another view is possible (para 10.1). Interference is permissible only if the findings below are perverse, or if there has been a non-appreciation or non-consideration of material evidence (para 10.1). Because none of these narrow thresholds were met, the High Court’s interference was legally unsustainable (para 10.3).
On bona fide requirement: The Court examined the substantive standard for eviction under rent control law. It explained that “bona fide requirement” denotes a “felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire,” not a mere whim or fancy (para 6.1). Applying this to the facts, the Bench held that the existence of a third shop did not undermine the landlord’s claim. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had concurrently found that this shop was being used for storing waste material (para 9). The Supreme Court observed that even if the shop was used for such storage, that did not negate the genuine need to use the demised premises for a business: “The old saying is, ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure’. So, even if the statement is accepted as it is, we fail to see what is wrong with it. Let it be used as such” (para 9). The Court further held that once a landlord’s bona fide need is objectively established, the landlord’s subjective choice of which available accommodation to occupy for that purpose must be respected (para 9; see also ratio). Since the concurrent findings on non-payment and bona fide requirement were neither perverse nor tainted by jurisdictional error, the Court restored the eviction decree and directed the tenant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the shop within two months. The Court made no order as to costs (para 11).
Why it matters
The judgment carries two important practical lessons for India’s extensive body of rent-control litigation.
First, it restates that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is precisely that—revisional, not appellate. High Courts cannot use revision petitions to reweigh evidence, reassess witness credibility, or substitute their own view for the concurrent findings of specialised tribunals and first-appellate forums. This preserves finality and respects the distinct role assigned to fact-finding courts in rent disputes.
Second, the ruling provides a workable standard for what constitutes a “bona fide requirement.” A landlord must demonstrate an honest, objectively established need, not a mere desire; but once that threshold is crossed, the choice of which suitable property to use to satisfy that need is for the landlord to make. By refusing to treat a storage space as a fatal alternative accommodation, the Court has prevented an overly pedantic approach that would render landlord protections illusory.
For landlords and tenants alike, the decision is a reminder that rent control statutes are meant to balance competing interests: tenants retain statutory safeguards against arbitrary eviction, but landlords who prove a genuine need through due process are equally entitled to recover their property.