caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Satish Chander Aggarwal (D) By Lrs vs Shyam Lal Om Prakash, Arhti And Anr on 28 March, 2017Author: Kurian
Bench: Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.5/2017 IN & CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1464/2010
SATISH CHANDER AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. APPELLANT(S)/
APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
SHYAM LAL OM PRAKASH, ARHTI AND ANR RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
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.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
…………………..J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
…………………..J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 30, 2017.
Comments