Supreme Court settles 63-year-old legal battle between a landlord and a tenant over rented accommodation

The Supreme Court on Thursday (24th April) passed a judgment in a 63-year-old legal battle between a landlord and a tenant wherein the latter remained on the property of the former for 63 years over the lease period.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and KV Viswanathan dismissed the tenant’s claim and allowed the appeal of the landlord for eviction of the tenant in Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) through LR Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs Mahendra Pratap Kakan through LRs and Ors by upholding the decision of the Prescribed Authority in 1983. The Court observed that the landlord genuinely needed his property for his disabled and unemployed son, who did not have any other property, and his income was not enough to support his family.

Granting relief to the landlord, the court observed that the eviction is not restricted to the genuine requirement of the landlord, the landlord’s family requirement would also qualify as a ‘bona fide requirement’ for the eviction of the tenant. “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 Supreme Court observed.

Notably, the tenant resisted the eviction, arguing that it would cause him hardship, but did not provide any proof to indicate that during the pendency of the legal battle that went on for over six decades, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and failed to get it. “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.”, the court said. “Nothing has been brought on record to show that the business of the appellant’s family is so vast as to neutralise their bona fide claim to evict the respondents from the suit property,” the court added.

What was the dispute

The judgment arises from a 63-year-old legal battle over a lease dated October 13, 1952, executed in favour of the tenant by the previous owner of the property. The duration of the lease was 10 years. In 1962, the property was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord who unsuccessfully tried to get an eviction under the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Later on in 1975, fresh proceedings for eviction were initiated by the landlord under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, citing bona fide requirement.

On December 20, 1983, the Prescribed Authority allowed the eviction application of the landlord after observing that he genuinely required the premises to start a cinema business, as he did not have any substantial income. The decision of the Prescribed Authority was overturned by the Appellate Authority, and the High Court also upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority. The case that came up before the Supreme Court which granted relief to the tenant.

News