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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 5 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 30, 2017

                                                                  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)
                                                        

                                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.