Supreme Court settles eviction of tenant on grounds of bona fide need: Murlidhar Aggarwal vs. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (2025) INSC 564 (24 April 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 564
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a landlord evict a tenant to use the property for his own business, even if the tenant has been there for a very long time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) Thr. His Lr. Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. The core issue was whether the landlord had a genuine need for the property and whether the tenant’s long-term occupancy should prevent the eviction. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices M.M. Sundresh and K.V. Viswanathan, allowed the appeal, siding with the landlord, and set aside the High Court’s order.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Allahabad, a cinema building known as Mansarovar Palace. On 13 October 1952, the respondents became tenants through a lease deed with the then-owner, Ram Swarup Gupta, for a period of 10 years. On 26 March 1962, Murlidhar Aggarwal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, purchased the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Murlidhar Aggarwal filed a case in 1965 seeking eviction under Section 7A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Although he won at the level of the Additional District Magistrate, the tenants successfully challenged the eviction order before the State Government. While a single judge initially quashed the State Government’s order, a Division Bench reversed this decision, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1974) 2 SCC 472.

Subsequently, on 09 October 1975, Murlidhar Aggarwal filed another case under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority allowed the eviction, but the Appellate Authority reversed this order. Eventually, the High Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily hinges on Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the building is genuinely required for the landlord’s own occupation or for the occupation of family members for residential or business purposes. The section states:

“21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. –
(1) The prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely –
(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust;”

Additionally, Section 21(7) of the same Act is relevant, which allows the legal representatives of a deceased landlord to continue the eviction application based on their own needs. It states:

“21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant –
(7). Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub -section (1), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased.”

Rule 16(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides factors to consider when evaluating eviction applications for business purposes.

“16. Application for release on the ground of personal requirement. –
(2) While considering an application for release under clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section 21 in respect of a building let out for purposes of any business, the Prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such facts as the following –
(a) the greater the period since when the tenant opposite party, or the original tenant whose heir the opposite party is, has been carrying on his business in that building, the less the justification for allowing the application;
(b) where the tenant has available with him suitable accommodation to which he can shift his business without substantial loss there shall be greater justification for allowing the application;
(c) the greater the existing business of the landlords own, apart from the business proposed to be set up in the leased premises, the less the justification for allowing the application, and even if an application is allowed in such a case, the Prescribed Authority may on the application of the tenant impose the condition where the landlord has available with him other accommodation (whether subject to the Act or not) which is not suitable for his own proposed business but may serve the purpose of the tenant, that the landlord shall let out that accommodation to the tenant on a fair rent to be fixed by the Prescribed Authority;
(d) where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord has, after the building was originally let out, completed his or her technical education and is not employed in Government service, and wants to engage in self -employment, his or her need shall be given due consideration.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Bona Fide Need: The Prescribed Authority correctly identified the bona fide need of the landlord by independently analyzing the evidence. There were no valid reasons for the Appellate Authority to reverse this finding.
• Atul Kumar’s Circumstances: During the High Court proceedings, Murlidhar Aggarwal passed away. His son, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, submitted an affidavit stating he has no income source and no other business. The suit property is the only commercial property available, and Atul Kumar is physically challenged, which further emphasizes his need.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Legal Heirs’ Need: The legal heirs cannot continue the litigation based on their father’s need. They should file a fresh application demonstrating their own requirement for the property.
• Lack of Established Need: The legal heirs have not established their own need for the property during the proceedings. They are already well-settled and do not require the property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased landlord can continue the eviction application based on their own needs.
2. Whether the landlord has a bona fide need for the property.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court relied on several cases and legal provisions to support its decision:

• Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: This section allows a landlord to seek eviction if the building is required for their own occupation or that of their family.
• Section 21(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: This section allows legal representatives to continue the eviction application based on their own needs.
• Rule 16(2)(c) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972: This rule relates to the cases of eviction from an accommodation for business use.
• Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397: This case established that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed, covering the needs of family members.
• Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549: This case also supports the liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement for family members.
• Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155: This case held that one of the circumstances to be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it.
• Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770: This case was relied upon in Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155.
• Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300: This case was also relied upon in Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155.
• Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 28: This case interpreted Rule 16 of the Rules of 1972, clarifying the factors to be considered in eviction cases.
• Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma (D.) Thr. LRs, (2017) 5 SCC 640: This case found that the landlady’s bona fide need had subsisted as she wanted the premise not just for herself but to accommodate her parents & grandparents.
• Sheshambal (D.) Thr. L Rs. v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 470: This case is distinguishable from the present case because none of the married daughters had a bona fide need for the premises, and the death of the landlady brought to an end the ground of personal requirement.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court applied this section to determine whether the landlord had a genuine need for the property.
• Section 21(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court relied on this section to allow the legal representatives to continue the eviction application based on their own needs.
• Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397: The Court cited this case to support the liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement for family members.
• Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549: The Court cited this case to further support the liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement for family members.
• Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155: The Court used this case to emphasize that the tenant should have made an effort to seek alternative accommodation during the litigation.
• Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 28: The Court referred to this case to interpret Rule 16 of the Rules of 1972 and clarify the factors to be considered in eviction cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established bona fide need of the landlord’s legal heir, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, who is crippled and lacks a stable income source. The Court also considered the tenant’s prolonged occupancy of the property and their failure to seek alternative accommodation despite running multiple businesses.

Fact:Law: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the landlord has a bona fide need for the property, the court’s logical reasoning can be illustrated as follows:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed, even covering the needs of family members. The Court stated:

“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.”

The Court also noted the tenant’s failure to seek alternative accommodation despite their long-term occupancy and multiple businesses:

“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.”

Finally, the Court concluded:

“For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 09. 01.2013 in Writ-A No. 8508 of 1999 is set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• A landlord’s need for their property can extend to the needs of their family members.
• Tenants cannot simply rely on long-term occupancy to prevent eviction; they must also demonstrate efforts to find alternative accommodation.
• Courts will weigh the comparative hardship to both landlord and tenant when deciding eviction cases.

Directions

The respondents are granted time until 31 December 2025 to vacate the premises, provided they file the usual undertaking and clear all arrears of rent/use and occupation charges within 4 weeks from today.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case reinforces the principle that a landlord’s bona fide need for property extends to their family members and that tenants must actively seek alternative accommodation to strengthen their case against eviction.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the bona fide need of the landlord’s legal heir and the tenant’s failure to seek alternative accommodation. The judgment reinforces the importance of balancing the rights of landlords and tenants in eviction cases.