Supreme Court Allows Eviction After 73-Year Tenancy, Upholds Landlord’s Bona Fide Need in Landmark Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. And Ors., bringing closure to a property dispute spanning over seven decades. The case involved a cinema hall in Allahabad where the tenant had been occupying the premises for 73 years – 63 years after the expiry of the original 10-year lease agreement.

The dispute originated in 1952 when the respondents entered the suit property through a lease deed. The appellant’s predecessor purchased the property in 1962 and initiated eviction proceedings in 1965 under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. After multiple rounds of litigation, the present eviction petition was filed in 1975 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, citing bona fide need.

The Prescribed Authority in 1983 had allowed the eviction application, finding that the landlord’s need was genuine. It noted: “The applicant has to look for the avenues of income to support his family. It is not the requirement of law that applicant should sit idle till his premises are not released.” However, the Appellate Authority reversed this decision, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-holds-shaji-augustine-guilty-of-contempt-for-wilful-disobedience-of-court-order/

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and K.V. Viswanathan carefully analyzed the findings of the Prescribed Authority, which had recorded that the landlord’s wealth was in negative and his income was abysmally low. The Court observed: “The Prescribed Authority found that while there was some income from speculative transactions which was sporadic, the only consistent income for applicant was his salary income and concluded that the wealth was in the negative as far as the applicants were concerned.”

The Court rejected the Appellate Authority’s reasoning that the Prescribed Authority had made out a new case, stating: “This finding is completely untenable. The Prescribed Authority found that while there was some income from speculative transactions which was sporadic, the only consistent income for applicant was his salary income and concluded that the wealth was in the negative as far as the applicants were concerned. There is no contradiction, much less has any new case been made out.”

Regarding the subsequent events after the death of original applicant Murlidhar Aggarwal, the Court noted that his son Atul Kumar Aggarwal had filed an affidavit stating he was crippled and had no source of income. The Court relied on Section 21(7) of the 1972 Act which allows legal representatives to continue proceedings based on their own need, observing: “In the absence of any denial to the facts that Atul Kumar, the son of Murlidhar Aggarwal is crippled and has no other source of income or any other business, the need of the appellant has been clearly established in this case.”

The Court also considered the comparative hardship aspect, noting that the tenant had multiple businesses while the landlord’s family was struggling financially. It cited precedent from Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand that one factor to consider is whether the tenant made any attempt to seek alternative accommodation during the long litigation. The Court found: “In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-property-rights-based-on-valid-gift-deed-in-land-dispute-case/

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the premises by 31.12.2025, subject to filing the usual undertaking and clearing all arrears. The judgment brings to an end a property dispute that has been ongoing for nearly half a century in the courts.

Petitioner Name: Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal.
Respondent Name: Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. And Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice K. V. Viswanathan.
Place Of Incident: Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 24-04-2025.
Result: allowed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: murlidhar-aggarwal-(-vs-mahendra-pratap-kaka-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-04-2025.pdf