The Supreme Court (SC) has ended a tenancy dispute that spanned more than seven decades, ruling in favour of landlord Jyoti Sharma in her eviction suit against tenants Vishnu Goyal and others. In its judgement on 11 September 2025, the bench comprising justice JK Maheshwari and justice K Vinod Chandran decreed eviction and directed recovery of rent arrears dating back to January 2000, while allowing the tenants a six-month window to vacate the premises.
The long-running legal battle which originated from a tenancy established in 1953, revolved around a shop in which the tenant’s family operated a grocery business. The landlord, Ms Sharma, claimed ownership of the property through a will executed by her father-in-law, Ramji Das, in 1999. She sought eviction of the tenants on grounds of default in rent and bona fide requirement to expand her family’s sweets and savouries business operating from an adjoining shop.
The trial court had earlier dismissed the suit, doubting the authenticity of the will and holding that Ms Sharma failed to prove ownership and landlord–tenant relationship. The first appellate court initially remanded the matter for further findings, and later, after fresh consideration, dismissed the appeal. The High Court (HC) upheld the dismissal in the second appeal. The SC, however, overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, terming them perverse and based on conjecture.
Justice Vinod Chandran, writing for the bench, observed that the courts below had failed to appreciate material evidence and had wrongly rejected the landlord’s claim of ownership and bona fide need. The court noted that Mr Das, the original landlord, had rented out the premises to the tenant’s father, Kishan Lal, in 1953. After Mr Lal’s death, his sons—the present defendants—continued the business and tenancy. The court also recorded that Ramji Das had executed a will on 12 May 1999, bequeathing the disputed shop to his daughter-in-law, Jyoti Sharma, while leaving the adjoining portion to her children.
Ms Sharma’s family, residing on the first floor of the same building, had been running a sweets and savouries shop in the adjacent part of the property. Her eviction claim was based on the intention to join and expand this business into the tenanted shop. The Goyals disputed her ownership, alleging that Mr Das himself had no title, as the property originally belonged to his paternal uncle, Sua Lal, who died in 1984. They further alleged that the will was forged and that there was no attornment of tenancy in favour of Ms Sharma after Mr Das’ death.
The SC rejected the tenants’ objections, noting that they had admitted to paying rent to Mr Das during his lifetime and continued to pay rent to his son, Ms Sharma’s husband, even after his death. “The tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord cannot turn around and challenge his ownership,” the Court observed. It also referred to a 1953 relinquishment deed executed by Mr Lal in favour of Mr Das, confirming that the latter had clear ownership over the property.
On the question of the Will’s authenticity, the SC found that the trial court’s suspicion was unfounded. It noted that the probate of the will had been granted by the additional district judge in 2018, during the pendency of the HC proceedings. Although the HC declined to admit this evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the SC held that such refusal was misplaced. “When an order of probate was produced, the claim of the plaintiff through a will attains a legal sanctity which could not have been brushed aside by the high court,” the judgement says.
The bench criticised the trial court’s reasoning that it was unnatural for the testator not to leave any share for his wife, calling it an invalid ground to suspect the will. “The finding of the trial court that it is not natural that a person would not keep in mind the interest of his own wife is not a valid ground to suspect the intentions of the testator or the probity of the bequest made,” the Court stated. It emphasised that in eviction proceedings, ownership need not be proved with the same rigour required in a title declaration suit.
The Court also accepted the landlord’s evidence on attornment. It found that Ms Sharma’s husband had testified to collecting rent after his father’s death on her behalf and that registered notices informing tenants of the bequest had been sent to their address. “Since the registered notice sent in the address of the tenant was proved, the presumption is that the registered notice sent was received by the addressee,” the judgement says, restoring the finding of valid attornment that earlier courts had ignored.
Addressing the issue of bona fide requirement, the SC held that Ms Sharma had clearly demonstrated her need to expand the family business. It took note of the fact that her husband and sons were running the sweets shop adjacent to the disputed premises and that she intended to join and expand the business. “There is no dispute as to the business carried on in the adjacent shop room or the plaintiff’s intention to participate in the business, thus expanding it to the tenanted premises. The bona fide need hence stands established,” the Court concluded.
In a sharp critique of the lower courts’ approach, the SC says that they had entered findings 'in a perverse manner based on mere surmises and conjectures' and had failed to consider critical evidence such as the relinquishment deed and the admitted landlord–tenant relationship that had existed for decades. The bench observed that even though there were concurrent findings against Ms Sharma, those decisions ignored material evidence and hence warranted interference by the apex court.
Allowing the appeal, the SC decreed the suit for eviction and directed recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 until the Goyals hand over possession. Considering the long duration of tenancy, the court granted the tenants six months’ time to vacate, provided they file an undertaking within two weeks to pay all arrears within one month and to surrender vacant possession within six months. Failing this, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek summary eviction.
With this judgement, the SC brought closure to a tenancy relationship that began more than 70 years ago, underscoring that long possession does not entitle tenants to question the landlord’s title when the tenancy itself originated under that ownership. The decision reinforces the principle that bona fide need and landlord’s rights under rent control law must be protected when substantiated by clear evidence, even if concurrent findings by lower courts suggest otherwise.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.29500 of 2024 Date: 11 September 2025)
A sentenced thief or rapist or murderer, do the courts say that jaa beta Ghar Jaa, teri sajaa 6 mahine baad shuru hogi, tab aana, sorry, tab hum execution proceedings shuru karenge! If no then why 6 months given here? Judges in India badly need orientation classes.
Then the court person told he will get people for doing the job with expenses for which we agreed. We are having our own doubts this court person got mingled with the opposite party and he informed them what to do and when a date was fixed to break open the court people called the opposite party and informed them about the breakings and suddenly the opposite party sent a stay order by whatsapp and now it is almost one year we are not getting a date for our appeals for getting the judgement.