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

1

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

2

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.

3

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 30, 2017.

4