Tenant Ordered to Vacate Premises After 73-Year Occupation

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.

The landlord tried to evict the tenant multiple times, but failed:

Order of eviction made by the Additional District Magistrate Set Aside

• 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 v. 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.

Next Round of Litigation:

• In 1975, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the appellant sought eviction citing bona fide requirement for business purposes.
• The Prescribed Authority allowed eviction in 1983, but it was reversed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 2013.

Death of Landlord Murlidhar Aggarwal

During the pendency in the High Court, Murlidhar Aggarwal died, and his son Atul Kumar Aggarwal continued the proceedings.

Petitioner (Landlord) Argument

• Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the Prescribed Authority having correctly arrived at the finding of bona fide need by independently analyzing the evidence in the case and there were no good grounds for the Appellate Authority to reverse the said finding.
• It was also brought to the notice that during the pendency of the proceeding in the High Court, Murlidhar Aggarwal died and his son Atul Kumar Aggarwal has filed an affidavit stating that he has no source of income and that he does not have any other business.
• Further it is averred that there is no commercial property except this suit property and that Atul Kumar is crippled on account of the malfunctioning of the hip bone and is moving with a limp.

Respondent (Tenant) Argument

• On the other hand, Mr. Anand Varma, learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the finding of the Appellate Authority.
• It is further contended that legal heirs cannot continue the litigation on the basis of the need of their father and ought to prefer a fresh application for release in accordance with law, setting up their own requirement for release of the premises in question.
• Learned counsel for the respondents contended that at no stage of the present proceedings have the legal heirs of the appellant set up their own need and requirement for the property in question.
• According to the learned Counsel, the legal heirs are already well settled and have no need for the property.
• According to the learned Counsel, Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition, which has been filed on the basis of the need of the appellant i.e. the original applicant, is thus not maintainable.

Analysis of Supreme Court:

Bonafide need analysis: Whether by applying the bona fide need as on the date of the eviction petition or taking into account the subsequent events, the court found that the bona fide need of the appellant on the facts of the present case is made out on both scenarios.

Bonafide requirement to be liberally construed: It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed, and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered.

Need of the appellant has been clearly established: In this case, we have Section 21(7) additionally to reinforce the position. 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.

Tenant made no effort to find alternative accommodation: 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 and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one.

Final Judgement of the Court:

• The Apex Court finally brought “curtains down” on this long-drawn-out litigation concerning the cinema hall.
• For the reasons stated above, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 09.01.2013 in Writ-A No. 8508 of 1999 was set aside.
• The respondents were granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, subject to the respondents filing the usual undertaking and clearing all arrears, if any, of rent/use and occupation charges, within 4 weeks from today.