MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Whether bonafide need of landlord can be treated as bonafide need of his legal heirs after his death?


I.A. No. 5/2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1464/2010

Decided On: 30.03.2017

Satish Chander Aggarwal (D) by L.Rs.
Shyam Lal Om Prakash, Arhti and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 14 SCC 497

1. The original owner-landlord/Mr. Satish Chander Aggarwal (who is no more) filed an application for eviction in the year 1975 on the ground of bona fide requirement for expansion of family business in the name and style of M/s. Roop Krishna Traders.

2. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The First Appellate Authority reversed the finding 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 Court 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 Authority.

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 fide 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 cause of action and the same need to be separately established. Therefore, granting liberty to the surviving legal heirs to pursue the eviction in accordance with law, the writ petition was allowed setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved the appeal.

See also  Property Dispute filed As Domestic Violence Complaint Quashed

5. Heard Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior Counsel and Mr. Sanjay Bansal, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Arun Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. The crucial question is, whether the bona fide requirement, as established by the original landlord/Mr. Satish Chander Aggarwal, would meet the requirement Under Section 21(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act as far as surviving legal heirs are concerned. It is not in dispute that the business that had been carried on by Late Mr. Satish Chander Aggarwal 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, satisfies the requirements of bona fide need of the landlord. 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 case before us, since it is family business and since the landlord has established the requirement of the premises for the family business, we are of the view that it is not necessary to relegate the legal heirs for another round of litigation for eviction.

7. 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. I.A. No. 5 of 2017 also stands disposed of.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submit that they are no more interested in keeping the premises, in view of the order passed as above, and hence it will be open to the Appellants to take physical possession of the premises. The above submission is recorded.

See also  498A, DP3 and misuse of Law

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Does posting a person's name or photograph on a pornographic website amount to a breach of that person's privacy?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation