In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on April 24, 2025, held that the need of a landlord’s family member also constitutes a bona fide requirement under law, making it a valid ground for eviction of a 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.” — Supreme Court
The case involved a 73-year-long possession of a cinema property by a tenant, including 63 years after the lease had expired. The Court finally ruled in favour of the landlord, noting that the property was genuinely needed by his disabled and unemployed son, who had no other income or property.
“In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant… has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation.” — Court observed
Despite the tenant's argument that eviction would cause hardship, the Court dismissed this claim, pointing out that there was no evidence to show he had tried to find alternate premises during the decades-long litigation.
Read Also:- Delay in Appeal Cannot Deny Fair Compensation to Landowners: Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Case
Justice KV Viswanathan, writing the judgment, relied on previous decisions and legal provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. He noted that the landlord’s need does not vanish after their death if their legal heirs can prove their own need.
“The need of the appellant has been clearly established in this case.” — Justice KV Viswanathan
The tenant’s claim of hardship also failed under comparative analysis. The Court found the tenant was financially strong, running multiple cinema halls and businesses, while the landlord’s son was disabled and had no steady income or alternative premises.
Finally, the Court set aside the High Court’s earlier order and allowed the appeal, granting time to the tenant till December 31, 2025, to vacate the premises.
Case Title: MURLIDHAR AGGARWAL (D.) THR. HIS LR. ATUL KUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS MAHENDRA PRATAP KAKAN (D.) THR. LRS. AND ORS.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Ms. Shivali Singh, Adv. Mr. Vedant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR
