Contours of ‘Bona Fide Requirement’ in Recovery Proceedings under Rent Control Enactments

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

The Supreme Court of India examined the contours of ‘bona fide requirement’, in Recovery Proceedings under Rent Control Enactments, in Madan Mohan v. Thakar Dass, July 21, 2026, 2026 INSC 730 (Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.), as under:

• “6.1 First and foremost, the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship is essential. While it is true that a landlord has the right to enjoy his own property, the law does not grant its refuge to any arbitrary action, and so a landlord simply by virtue of that status, cannot show someone the door without the due process of law. It is here that bona fide requirement comes in. Bona fide translates to ‘in good faith’ which then predicates the requirement that may be faced by a landlord. A co-ordinate Bench in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222, held thus:
  • “13… “The degree of intensity contemplated by “requires” is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase “required bona fide” is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself — whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.”
• In Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, ‘bona fide requirement’ was discussed in the following terms with reference to the earlier decisions in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, (1979) 1 SCC 273; Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87,
  • “14. The phrase “bona fide requirement” or “bona fide need” or “required reasonably in good faith” or “required”, occurs in almost all Rent Control Acts with the underlying legislative intent which has been considered and demonstrated innumerable times by various High Courts as also by this Court, some of which we would like to refer to. In Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander [(1988) 3 SCC 131] it is said that the bona fide need should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith. It was also indicated that the landlord’s desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it, and that desire, to become a “requirement” in law must have the objective element of a “need”, which can be decided only by taking all the relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded to a tenant is not rendered illusory or whittled down.”
    • (emphasis supplied)

• 7. As can be seen from the above, the Court has actively engaged with the question of ‘bona fide requirement’ right from the advent of Rent Control legislations. Across the country and across numerous statutes, this requirement is found and defined.
• 8. Whether or not, in a particular set of circumstances a landlord’s decision to ask his tenant to vacate, falls within ‘bona fide requirement’ is not something that can be determined by a mathematical formula. As such, let us examine the facts of the present case.
• 9. The primary reason why the High Court overturned the decision of the Courts below was that the landlady (Kamla Devi) had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed the availability of the third shop. It was observed that the said shop was used to store garbage. If the shop that is alleged to be an alternate accommodation was being used for storing waste material as has been held by both the RA and the AA, then that being the finding of fact, what occasioned the High Court to take a different view in civil revisional jurisdiction? 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. After all, right from beginning the ‘bona fide requirement’ was pleaded for by both Kamla Devi and Madan Mohan. It was concurrently held as such by the RA and the AA. The one that had hitherto been rented, will now be used as a shop to run a boutique.”