In a significant ruling on landlord-tenant disputes, the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) through LR Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D) through LRs and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017, upheld an eviction order originally passed by the Prescribed Authority in 1983. The apex court reversed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, affirming the landlord’s bona fide need for a cinema premises situated at 31, Shiv Charan Lal Road, Allahabad, known as Mansarovar Palace.
Background
The case has its origins in a lease dated 13 October 1952, executed in favour of the respondents by the then owner of the property. The lease was for ten years. Murlidhar Aggarwal, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, purchased the property in 1962. After an earlier unsuccessful attempt at eviction under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, fresh proceedings were initiated under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in 1975, citing bona fide need.
The Prescribed Authority allowed the eviction application on 20 December 1983, holding that the landlord genuinely required the premises for starting his own cinema business and that he lacked any substantial income. However, this was reversed by the Appellate Authority, and the High Court later upheld the appellate ruling.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the judgment for the bench comprising himself and Justice M.M. Sundresh, noted that:
“We find that elaborate reasons have been adduced and cogent finding recorded [by the Prescribed Authority]… the bona fide need of the appellant on the facts of the present case is made out on both scenarios [original need and subsequent events].”
The Court highlighted that the Prescribed Authority had found the landlord’s income to be extremely limited, with speculative earnings and negative net wealth. By contrast, the tenant was found to be a person of considerable means, operating multiple cinema businesses and paying significant taxes.
On the question of comparative hardship, the Court quoted the Prescribed Authority’s analysis noting:
“The applicant has to discharge the worldly liabilities… He is man of 40 years age and has to long face the world… The premises were leased out… for the period of 10 years in year 1952. He is enjoying the premises from last 31 years.”
The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Authority’s interference with these factual findings was unjustified and lacked evidentiary basis.
Legal Reasoning
Citing Section 21(7) of the 1972 Act, which allows legal heirs to prosecute eviction proceedings on the basis of their own need, the Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the appeal could not survive after the death of Murlidhar Aggarwal.
The Court further relied on precedents such as Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) and Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand (2012), reiterating that:
“Bona fide requirement of the landlord is to be liberally construed… and long possession by the tenant without any attempt to seek alternate accommodation also supports landlord’s claim.”
The Court also found Rule 16(2)(c) of the 1972 Rules (regarding comparative hardship) not to bar eviction, noting that no evidence had been presented by the tenants to show efforts at securing alternative premises.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 09.01.2013 in Writ-A No. 8508 of 1999 and restored the eviction order. The respondents were granted time until 31 December 2025 to vacate the premises, subject to filing of an undertaking and payment of arrears within four weeks.
“We finally bring the ‘curtains down’ on this long drawn out litigation concerning the cinema hall,” the Court concluded.
Citation: Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) through LR Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D) through LRs and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017
