2025 INSC 564 : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/yedy/
Supreme Court of India
M.M. Sundresh, *K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. LRs. v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017; 24th April, 2025
Keywords: Bona fide need, Eviction, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 21(1)(a), Comparative hardship, Landlord-tenant dispute, Legal representatives, Cinema hall lease.
Held
- Bona Fide Need Established: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated 09.01.2013, which had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. The Court upheld the Prescribed Authority’s finding that the landlord, Murlidhar Aggarwal, and subsequently his legal representative, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, had a bona fide need for the suit property (a cinema hall) under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord’s limited income, negative wealth, and lack of alternative business ventures substantiated the bona fide need, which persisted through the legal representative’s circumstances, including his physical disability and lack of income.
- Section 21(7) of the 1972 Act: The Court clarified that under Section 21(7), legal representatives of a deceased landlord can prosecute an eviction application based on their own need, substituting the original landlord’s need. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal by the legal representatives was rejected, as the son’s lack of income and physical condition reinforced the ongoing need for the property.
- Comparative Hardship: The Court assessed comparative hardship under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) and Rule 16(2) of the 1972 Rules. Despite the tenant’s long possession (73 years, including 63 years post-lease expiry), the tenant’s multiple business ventures, inherited properties, and lack of effort to seek alternative accommodation tilted the balance in favor of the landlord. The tenant’s claims of business losses and pending partition suits were insufficient to outweigh the landlord’s pressing need.
- Appellate Authority’s Error: The Appellate Authority’s reversal of the Prescribed Authority’s findings was unsustainable, as it failed to provide convincing reasons to dislodge the evidence-based conclusion of bona fide need. The assumption that the landlord had substantial business interests was not supported by documentary evidence, and the Prescribed Authority’s findings on the landlord’s limited income were consistent with the record.
- Precedent Application: Relying on cases like Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397, Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC 155, and Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda (2003) 2 SCC 28, the Court emphasized liberal construction of bona fide need, including family members’ requirements, and the relevance of the tenant’s failure to seek alternative accommodation in assessing comparative hardship.
- Outcome: The respondents (tenants) were directed to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2025, subject to filing an undertaking and clearing any rent arrears within four weeks. No costs were awarded.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Shivali Shah, Adv. Mr. Vedant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Varma, Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR