MURLIDHAR AGGARWAL (D.) THR. HIS LR. ATUL KUMAR AGGARWAL versus MAHENDRA PRATAP KAKAN (D.) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1753 · Decided: 24-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH, K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1753 : 2025 INSC 564
Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal 
v. 
Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017)
24 April 2025
[M.M. Sundresh and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court 
confirming the order of the appellate authority which had reversed 
the order passed by the prescribed authority granting eviction of 
the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide need.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.21(1)a, 21(7) – Uttar Pradesh 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Rules, 1972 – r.16(2) – Proceedings for release of building 
under occupation of tenant – Release on ground of personal 
requirement – Respondents entered the suit property by a 
lease deed for 10 years in 1952 – Predecessor-in-interest of 
the appellant purchased the suit property in 1962 – Appellant 
sought eviction, and the Prescribed authority ordered the 
eviction of respondent-tenant on grounds of bona fide need 
and comparative hardship – Appellate authority set aside the 
said order – High Court affirmed the order of the appellate 
authority – Sustainability:
Held: 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 – Appellate authority did not 
give convincing reasons for dislodging the independent findings 
arrived at by prescribed authority that the need of the appellant 
was bona fide – Elaborate reasons adduced and cogent finding 
recorded by prescribed authority that the bona fide need was 
found established – Son of the appellant is crippled and has 
no other source of income or any other business, need of the 
appellant clearly established – Bona fide need as on the date of 
eviction petition or taking subsequent events into account, bona 
* Author
1754
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
fide need is made out – Respondents who own several businesses 
managed to cling on to the premises for the last 63 years, after 
the expiry of the 10-year lease – Nothing on record to show that 
the tenant after the expiry of the lease, made any attempt to seek 
any alternative accommodation and to show that he was unable to 
get one – Furthermore, nothing on record to show that business of 
appellant’s family is so vast as to neutralize their bona fide claim 
to evict the respondents from the property – Impugned order set 
aside – Respondents to vacate the premises and deliver the vacant 
and peaceful possession. [Paras 12, 13, 23-30, 33]
Case Law Cited
Sheshambal (D.) Thr. LRs. v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building 
and Ors. [2010] 2 SCR 960 : (2010) 3 SCC 470 – distinguished. 
Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand [2012] 1 SCR 12 : (2012) 
2 SCC 155; Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors. [2008] 
8 SCR 538 : (2008) 7 SCC 770; Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) 
and Anr. (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 300; Sushila v. IInd Addl. District 
Judge, Banda and Ors. [2002] Supp. 5 SCR 286 : (2003) 2 SCC 
28; Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma (D.) Thr. LRs [2017] 1 SCR 897 :  
(2017) 5 SCC 640 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972; U.P. (Temporary) Control 
of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
List of Keywords
Eviction petition; Bona fide need; Film distribution business; Lease 
deed; Comparative hardship; Objection to maintainability; Alternative 
accommodation; Appellate authority; Prescribed authority; 
Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant; 
Release on ground of personal requirement; Expiry of the lease.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in WA No. 8508 of 1999
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1755
Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal v. 
Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. and Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Naman Tandon, Ms. Shivali Singh, Vedant 
Kohli, Soayib Qureshi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Anand Varma, Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
The present appeal calls in question the correctness of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.