Supreme Court Allows Eviction of Long‑standing Tenant, Finds Landlord’s Bona Fide Need and Grants Time to Vacate

A bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and K. V. Viswanathan heard an appeal arising from a challenge to the Allahabad High Court’s order which had dismissed an appeal against an Appellate Authority decision reversing an eviction decree. The core issue concerned whether the landlord’s claim of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be sustained, and whether the legal heirs could prosecute the petition after the landlord’s death under Section 21(7).

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 09.01.2013 and restored the eviction decree obtained by the landlord’s predecessor. The Supreme Court held that the Prescribed Authority had “elaborate reasons” and cogent findings supporting the existence of a bona fide need, and that Section 21(7) permitted legal representatives to prosecute the petition on the basis of their own need. The Court emphasised that bona fide requirement must be “liberally construed” and that comparative hardship had been properly weighed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. Hence, the objection to the maintainability of the special leave petition is rejected.” The Court granted the respondents time until 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises, subject to filing the usual undertaking and clearing all arrears within four weeks.

Background The dispute concerned a cinema theatre, Mansarovar Palace at 31 Shiv Charan Lal Road, Allahabad. The respondents had occupied the premises under a 10‑year lease dating from 13.10.1952; the present landlord’s predecessor purchased the property on 26.03.1962. After earlier litigation under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 culminated in the tenant continuing in possession, the landlord filed an eviction petition on 09.10.1975 under Section 21(1)(a) of the 1972 Act asserting bona fide requirement to run a cinema business for himself/family. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 20.12.1983, found the landlord’s need genuine, disbelieved tenant’s contentions about the landlord’s purportedly large income, and ordered eviction with Rs. 72,000 as compensation for loss of goodwill.

The tenant succeeded before the Appellate Authority which reversed those findings, and the High Court dismissed the landlord’s writ petition. The landlord died during the High Court proceedings; his son and legal representative, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, pursued the appeal in this Court. The respondents argued that legal heirs could not continue on the basis of the deceased’s need and reiterated the existence of multiple businesses and assets to contest bona fides. The Supreme Court reviewed Section 21(1)(a), the provisos and Rule 16(2) of the 1972 Rules (factors such as length of tenancy, availability of alternate accommodation and extent of landlord’s other businesses), and earlier precedents including Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal and Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand, and distinguished Sheshambal (D.) v. Chelur Corporation on its facts. The Court held that the Prescribed Authority had correctly evaluated documentary evidence showing the landlord’s limited and sporadic income and negative wealth position and had applied comparative‑hardship principles. It found no material showing the tenant had ever attempted to secure alternative accommodation during the long occupancy. The appeal was allowed; the High Court order was set aside; eviction was ordered with timelines and conditions as above. No costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017 (2025 INSC 564) Case Title: Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Balbir Singh, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Anand Varma, Counsel