The Supreme Court in the case Mohammed Sadiq vs Deepak Manglani observed while upholding an eviction order passed on the ground of bonafide requirement or need, the court stated that there is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies for starting the business.
In the present case, an eviction is sought by the landlord of the tenant on two grounds: firstly, the wilful default in payment of rent and secondly, the bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlord’s own use. Thus, the applicable law was Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
The bench observed that the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an eviction order. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the said order while observing that the eldest son of the Landlord was still pursuing studies and therefore the requirement of the land lord was not bona fide.
The bench comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that there is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies for starting a business. It was observed that the High Court for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited. Further, the court noted that the Appellate Authority had found that the landlord was carrying on business and that he had children for whom he wanted to set-up a business.
Accordingly, the bench restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Authority and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Moreover, the tenant is given a time of six months to vacate the property and handover the vacant possession.
