Not the Requirement of Law That Applicant Should Sit Idle Till His Premises Are Not Released: Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant from Cinema Hall After 63 Years

“Balance is in favour of landlord... He has to discharge worldly liabilities… His sons are not settled… The tenant has enjoyed the premises for 63 years after lease expiry” - In a landmark judgment  Supreme Court of India in Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) through LR Atul Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) through LRs & Ors., allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered eviction of the tenant from a cinema building in Allahabad, bringing an end to a 73-year-long possession and 63 years of post-lease occupation.

The judgment emphasizes the principles of bona fide need, comparative hardship, and the importance of liberally construing the landlord’s right to reclaim premises for personal occupation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

The case concerned the iconic Mansarovar Palace, a cinema hall in Allahabad. The property was leased to the tenant in 1952 for 10 years. In 1962, the appellant’s predecessor, Murlidhar Aggarwal, purchased the property. An eviction application was filed in 1975 under Section 21(1)(a) of the 1972 Act, citing the landlord’s pressing and genuine requirement.

The Prescribed Authority allowed eviction in 1983, noting: “The premises are honestly and in good faith required by landlord... The element of deceit is absent... The landlord has to look for avenues of income to support his family.”​

However, this was overturned by the Appellate Authority, which questioned the landlord’s claim of financial hardship and business need. The High Court later upheld the appellate reversal in 2013.

Meanwhile, the original landlord died, and his son Atul Kumar Aggarwal—crippled and with no other source of income—continued the litigation under Section 21(7) of the Act.

Was the landlord’s need bona fide, and had it become extinguished after his death?

The Court reaffirmed that bona fide need is to be interpreted liberally and includes need of legal heirs, especially under Section 21(7): “In the absence of any denial to the facts that Atul Kumar... is crippled and has no other source of income... the need of the appellant has been clearly established.”​

It rejected the tenant’s plea that legal heirs must file fresh proceedings:

“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.”​

What about alleged businesses of the landlord?

The Appellate Authority had speculated that the landlord was involved in multiple businesses. The Supreme Court found this assumption baseless: “The Prescribed Authority found that while there was some income from speculative transactions... the wealth was in the negative... There is no contradiction.”​

The Court reiterated that sporadic income does not negate genuine need, stating: “It is not the requirement of law that applicant should sit idle till his premises are not released.”​

Comparative Hardship

The tenant argued that eviction would cause undue hardship. The Court disagreed, citing that the tenant had occupied the premises for 73 years, and never attempted to find alternate accommodation:

“He is enjoying the premises from last 31 years [after lease expiry]... Tenant has made no attempt to seek any alternative accommodation... Nothing is brought on record to show he was unable to get one.”​

The Court drew on precedents like Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand, emphasizing: “Length of tenancy cannot by itself outweigh the legitimate need of the landlord.”​

Setting aside the High Court and Appellate Authority decisions, the Supreme Court restored the Prescribed Authority’s eviction order and directed:

“Respondents are granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession... subject to filing an undertaking and clearing all arrears within four weeks.”​

No costs were awarded.

This verdict settles a long-standing property dispute, reaffirming that landlords cannot be indefinitely deprived of their property rights due to prolonged tenancies. The Court balanced statutory protections for tenants with the legitimate rights and personal needs of landlords, especially when hardship and disability are involved.

Date of Decision: April 24, 2025