The Supreme Court on Monday 02 December 2025 stepped in to correct what it called an overreach by the Bombay High Court in a long-running eviction dispute from Mumbai’s Kamathipura area. Allowing the landlord’s appeal, the top court restored the eviction decree that had earlier been granted by two lower courts in favour of the property owner.
The case revolved around a non-residential premises sought for the business needs of the landlord’s daughter-in-law, a claim that had been accepted twice before being reversed by the High Court.
Read also: Pune Love Marriage Ends in 24 Hours: Court Grants Swift Mutual Divorce After Living Arrangemen
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns a ground-floor commercial unit bearing No. 4 on a plot at CTS No. 425, 12th Lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The landlord had approached the trial court seeking eviction of tenants who had been occupying the premises for decades.
The reason cited was the bona fide requirement of the landlord’s daughter-in-law, who intended to use the ground-floor space for commercial purposes. The Trial Court decreed eviction, a finding later upheld by the First Appellate Court.
However, the tenants succeeded before the Bombay High Court, which, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the concurrent findings and denied eviction.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Eight-Week Relief to Elected Sarpanch in Surrender Dispute, Flags Risk to
Supreme Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was critical of the High Court’s approach. The judges noted that the High Court had gone into a “microscopic scrutiny” of pleadings and evidence, something not permissible while exercising revisional powers.
“The High Court, while reversing concurrent findings of fact, exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court underlined that interference is justified only when the lower courts’ findings are clearly without authority or jurisdiction, which was not the case here.
On the issue of alternative accommodation suggested by the tenants, the bench reiterated settled law. Referring to earlier precedent, it noted that tenants cannot dictate to a landlord which premises should be considered suitable.
“The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein,” the court said, stressing that subsequent changes like obtaining a commercial electricity connection could not defeat a genuine requirement.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Madarsa Property Dispute, Clears Way for Action Pending
Court’s Decision
Concluding that the High Court’s interference was legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment and restored the eviction orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Considering the fact that the tenants had occupied the premises for nearly half a century, the court granted time until 30 June 2026 to vacate, subject to strict conditions. These include clearing rent arrears within one month, continuing to pay regular monthly rent, and filing a formal undertaking before the Bombay High Court.
Failure to comply, the court warned, would allow the landlord to execute the decree without any protection from the extended time granted.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, bringing the long-standing dispute to a close at the level of the Supreme Court of India.
Case Title: Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. vs Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 30407 of 2024
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Eviction Matter
Decision Date: 02 December 2025
