Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) through his LRs. Atul Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Rent and Eviction – Eviction of tenant on the ground of bonafide need of landlord – [Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ; Rule 16(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972] – Bona fide requirement for occupation of landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even requirement of family members would be covered – Prescribed Authority has concluded that wealth of applicant was in negative and income was also abysmally low and referred to documentary evidence – Only reason given by Appellate Authority is that since appellants took the stand that they have no other business and finding of Prescribed Authority was that income is not sufficient, Prescribed Authority has found a new case wholly against facts available on record – This finding is completely untenable – At the outset, bona fide need of appellant is clearly established – Respondents who own several businesses have managed to cling on to premises for last 63 years, after expiry of 10-years lease – Nothing is on record to show that tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after expiry of lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one – Judgment and order of High Court set aside and respondents granted time to vacate premises. (Paras 13, 16, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls in question the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2013 in Writ (A) No. 8508 of 1999 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By said Judgment and Order, High Court dismissed Writ Petition of the appellant and confirmed the order of Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority had reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20.12.1983 by which Prescribed Authority had allowed application of appellant and ordered eviction of respondent on the ground of bona fide need.
Findings of Court:
Respondents are granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate premises and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises, subject to respondents filing the usual undertaking and clearing all arrears, if any, of rent/use and occupation charges, within 4 weeks from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal concerns the eviction of a tenant based on the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the premises. The courts have emphasized that the requirement for occupation by the landlord or their family members should be interpreted liberally, including family members (!) .
The original authority had found that the landlord’s need was genuine and bona fide, and this finding was supported by detailed reasoning, which was upheld even after the landlord’s death during the proceedings (!) .
The legal provisions relevant to eviction due to bona fide need include Section 21(1)(a) of the applicable Act and Rule 16(2) of the Rules, which outline the conditions under which eviction can be ordered and factors to be considered, such as the length of tenancy, availability of alternative accommodation, and the extent of the landlord’s business activities (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have clarified that the bona fide need of the landlord or their family members should be considered generously, and even family members’ requirements are included within this scope (!) .
The courts have also held that the subsequent events, such as the death of the original applicant, do not alter the original bona fide need established at the time of the application, especially when the legal representatives have their own need, which is also bona fide and genuine (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the financial status and business activities of the landlord and their family is crucial. The courts have examined the income, assets, and extent of business operations to determine whether the need is genuine and whether the landlord’s claim is justified (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have observed that if the landlord has alternative suitable accommodation or is engaged in extensive business activities, the justification for eviction diminishes. Conversely, a limited or non-flourishing business or lack of alternative accommodation supports the bona fide need claim (!) (!) .
The courts have reiterated that the length of tenancy alone does not justify or negate the bona fide need; rather, it is one of multiple factors to be weighed, including the landlord’s overall circumstances and hardships involved (!) (!) .
The courts have confirmed that the legal heirs can continue proceedings based on the original bona fide need of the deceased landlord, provided that the need remains genuine and is properly established by the heirs (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts have allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and granted the respondents a specific period to vacate the premises, conditioned upon the filing of an undertaking and the clearance of any arrears (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2013 in Writ (A) No. 8508 of 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the said Judgment and Order, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant and confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20.12.1983 by which the Prescribed Authority had allowed the application of the appellant and ordered the eviction of the respondent-Ram Agya Singh on the ground of bona fide need.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 13.10.1952, the respondents entered the suit property by virtue of a lease deed executed by one Ram Swarup Gupta, the then owner of the suit property. The lease was for a period of 10 years. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant, one Shri Murlidhar Aggarwal purchased the suit property on 26.03.1962. The suit property is a Cinema building situated at 31, Shiv Charan Lal Road, Allahabad, popularly known as Mansarovar Palace, along with its furniture, fixture and fittings.
3. There is a previous round of litigation which requires a brief mention. Case No. 124 of 1965 was instituted by Murlidhar Aggarwal seeking eviction under Section 7A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (for short ‘1947 Act’). An order of eviction was made by the Additional District Magistrate which was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. On a revision filed under Section 7F of the 1947 Act, the tenants succeeded in getting the eviction order set aside by filing a representation before the State Government. Though the learned Single Judge at the behest of Shri Murlidhar Aggarwal quashed the order of the State Government, the Division Bench reversed the order and this Court, by a judgment reported in Murlidhar Aggarwal vs. State of U.P., (1974) 2 SCC 472, confirmed the order of the Division Bench. The net result was that the proceedings came to an end and the tenants continued to occupy the premises.
4. On 09.10.1975, Murlidhar Aggarwal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein filed Case No. 301 of 1975 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act of 1972’). Though Rajkumar Aggarwal was applicant no. 2 before the Appellate Authority, it is not in dispute that he has since relinquished his claim.
5. As is clear from the order of the Prescribed Authority, it was specifically pleaded in the application that the said Shri Murlidhar Aggarwal was living at the mercy of his father; that he has his wife and children to look after; that there was no independent business which they are doing and that in spite of their father’s repeated advice to start some business they are not able to get a place to start the business; that the opposite party is refusing to vacate the premises in spite of the expiry of the lease; that the opposite party has other places where he is carrying on business apart from their own residential house; that the opposite party has cinema business in Gazipur and Varanasi and are also doing film distribution business. It was specifically pleaded that there was no independent income for the applicants, and they are in bona fide need of the property. It was also pleaded that their need was pressing, bona fide and genuine.
6. In response, the respondent-tenant (Ram Agya Singh, the predecessor of the respondents) pleaded that he has spent around Rs. 30,000/- over the property, that the applicants are in joint family business with their father Radhey Shyam Aggarwal; that Radhey Shyam Aggarwal is running his business in the name of Ajanta Talkies and that the wife of Murlidhar Aggarwal, Prem Lata is a co-licensee with her father-in-law in the Ajanta Talkies business. It was also pleaded that the applicants have share in the firm Murlidhar Gyanendra Kumar and that the monthly income was more than
Eviction of tenant – Bona fide requirement for occupation of landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even requirement of family members would be covered.
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for their property does not require absolute necessity, and long-term tenancy does not preclude eviction if the landlord's need is genuine.
The concept of bona fide need requires a genuine desire for premises, and the landlord's choice of accommodation should be respected by the court.
The landlord's need for release should be judged disparately, and the tenant cannot question and compel a landlord to live in a particular manner. The landlord is the best judge of his residential re....
The central legal point established is that for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord must demonstrate a genuine and necessary need for the premises, and the court will respect the....
The bona fide need of a landlord for eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is a factual determination that should not be interfered with by the courts, and tenants cannot dictate the m....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
