SATISH CHANDER AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. versus SHYAM LAL OM PRAKASH, ARHTI AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 30-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 711 
SATISH CHANDER AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
SHYAM LAL OM PRAKASH, ARHTI AND ANR. 
(I.A. No. 5 of2017) 
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 1464 of2010) 
MARCH30,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Building Act - s.2J(a) - Eviction - On ground of 
bo.na fick requirement of the legal heirs of deceased landlord -
Original owner-landlord filed an application for eviction on the 
ground of bona fide requirement for expansion of family business -
Rent Controller dismissed it - First Appellate Authority reversed the 
finding and granted eviction, on finding that the premises was 
required for the business of the landlord - Aggrieved tenant filed 
writ petition before High Court - Meanwhile, landlord expired -
High Court taking note of fact that landlord has expired, declined 
to go into the question of bona fide requirement and held that 
continuation of business by legal heirs is a distinct cause of action 
and sqme needs to be established separately - On appeal, held: No 
doubt, in a given case the bona fide requirement of landlord. and of 
surviving legal heirs may vary - However,-. ~n the instant case: it is a 
family business and landlord has established the requirement of the 
premises for family business - Hence, it is not necessary to relegate 
the legal heirs for another round of litigation for eviction - Order 
passed by the First Appellate Authority restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: i. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the 
business that had been carried on by original landlord is being 
continued by his legal heirs. It is a family business. If that be so, 
the requirement, as established and which has been upheld by 
the Appellate Authority after conducting even a spot inspection, 
in our view, safisfies the requirements of bona fide need of the 
la'ndlord. No doubt, in a given case the bona fide requirement of 
the original landlord and that of the surviving legal heirs may 
vary. But in the instant case, since it is family business and since 
the landlord has established the requirement of the premises for 
711 
A 
B 
c 
D 
, . 
E 
F 
G 
H 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S,C.R. 
A 
the family business, it is not necessary to relegate the legal heirs 
for another round of litigation for eviction. [Para 6] [713-C-E] 
2. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the High 
Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The order passed by 
the First Appellate Authority for eviction is restored. [Para 7] 
B 
[713-E-F] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 5 of 2017 in 
Civil Appeal No. 1464 of2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2006 of the High Com1 
of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 8498/88. 
A. K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Srivastava, Vaibhav M. 
"Srivastava, P. N. Puri, Sanjay Bansal, Ajay Choudhary, Advs. for the 
. Appellants. 
Arun Aggarwal, Taranjeet Singh, Gaurav Aggarwal, Advs. for 
the Re~pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. The original owner-landlord/Mr. Satish Chander 
· Aggarwal (who is no more) filed an application for eviction in the year 
1975 on tiµ: ground of bona fide requirement for expansion of family 
business in the name and style ofM/s. Roop Krishna Traders. 
2. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The First Appellate 
Authority reversed the fo1ding and granted eviction, on a finding that the 
premises was required for the business of the landlord. It is on record 
that the First Appellate Authority had undertaken a spot inspection so as 
to satisfy himself as to the bona fide need of the landlord. 
3. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter before the High Cou11 
in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the 
.meanwhile Mr. Satish Chander Aggarwal died on 04.07.2005. The death 
occurred after the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the 
First Appellate Authodty. 
4. The High Court, taking note of the fact that the original landlord 
has expired, declined to go into the question of bona fide requirement. 
According to the High Court, the bona f!de requirement of the father is 
one thing and the bona fide requirement of the son and daughter, who 
have been continuing the business of the father, is a distinct cam~e of 
SATISH CHANDER AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. v. SHYAM LAL 
OM PRAKASH, ARHTI [KURIAN, J.] 
action and the same need to be separately established. Therefore, 
granting liberty to the surviving legal heirs to pursue the

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