The landlord can now seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of tenanted premises for the purposes of the business requirement of the son, daughter or any other member of the family dependant on him or her.
The High Court has held in the case of Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi that there is no law which suggests that if a landlord requires the premises for running business of his/her young son who is an MBA graduate and is already engaged in some other business, he is acting malafidely and thus, no relief should be granted to him/her. The High court had also rejected the argument that the since the son is already a director in the family company, there is no bona fide need of the tenanted premises.
With regard to plea that the landlord has alternative premises, the High Court had observed: “It is not law that a petition for bona fide necessity does not lie because the husband of the landlady, who is carrying on a business on-premises must stop that business for or a son who wants to open a new business, more so when the tenanted premises are more suitable being on the main road and in a valuable market.”
Thus it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to from which shop her son should start the business from.