The Supreme Court has ordered the eviction of a tenant’s legal heir and directed the return of the Mansarovar Palace cinema hall in Prayagraj to its rightful owners after 63 years. The court remarked, “We finally bring the curtains down on this long drawn out litigation.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court concluded a 63-year-old tenancy dispute by ordering the legal heir of the tenant to relinquish possession of the “Mansarovar Palace” cinema hall in Prayagraj to the rightful owners’ family.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K V Viswanathan, stated,
“We finally bring the curtains down on this long drawn out litigation concerning the cinema hall. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the high court dated January 9, 2013 in Writ… of 1999 is set aside,”
The court granted the respondents until December 31, 2025, to vacate the premises and ensure a “peaceful possession” of the property, contingent upon their filing the usual undertaking and settling any arrears of rent or occupation charges within four weeks from the ruling.
The legal battle included two rounds of litigation, ultimately resulting in Atul Kumar Aggarwal, the legal heir of the late Muralidhar Aggarwal, prevailing in the case. Consequently, the legal heirs of the late tenant, Mahendra Pratap Kakan, are now required to surrender the cinema hall.
The Supreme Court set-aside a 2013 decision by the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the eviction plea from the owner’s family and upheld a previous authority’s ruling allowing the tenant to retain possession.
The dispute originated from a 1952 lease agreement under which the tenant, represented by the late Ram Agya Singh, occupied the cinema.
Murlidhar purchased the property in 1962 and filed numerous eviction suits over the years, citing a bona fide need for the premises.
Also Read: Bombay HC Urges Transparency: No Sealed Submissions Allowed
Earlier litigation under the Uttar Pradesh Rent Control Act of 1947 favored the tenant, but a new eviction application was filed in 1975 under the 1972 Rent Control Act.
The prescribed authority initially approved the eviction, citing genuine personal need, but this decision was reversed on appeal, leading to a challenge in the High Court and eventually the Supreme Court.
In the second appeal, Justice Viswanthan, in a 24-page judgment, emphasized that the bona fide requirement of a landlord must be “liberally construed.”
The ruling noted that the cinema premises were essential for supporting the landlord’s family, particularly Atul Kumar, the disabled son of Murlidhar, who lacked independent means of livelihood.
The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant’s claims that the landlord’s family was engaged in other businesses or had sufficient income, stating that these assertions were unsubstantiated and irrelevant to proving genuine need.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
