It took 60 years long legal fight involving two generations of landlord to win eviction order against tenant in Supreme Court

What is the point of having a property in a posh and prime location of a city if it’s encroached by unauthorised tenants thereby denying the opportunity to your own family for using this property. This is why a landlord decided to fight a legal battle against his tenants when his property was being occupied by them in an unauthorised manner, well-past their lease period. He filed a legal suit of eviction in 1965, but in 1974, he lost this eviction case in the Supreme Court.

However, this loss did not stop him, as in 1975 he filed another suit of eviction in the district court and then subsequently in the High Court in 1999, against the same tenants who continued to occupy the property. However, in the middle of this legal fight he unfortunately died. After this, his children continued the legal fight. Ultimately, the children won the case in the Supreme Court of India in April 2025.

A noteworthy aspect about this legal victory is that the tenant’s lawyer said that the children (legal heirs) can’t continue with their deceased father’s eviction suit. The Supreme Court however rejected this point by interpreting Section 21 (1) (a). The Supreme Court held that even genuine need of landlord’s legal heir can count as ‘Bona Fide Requirement’ for grounds of a tenant‘s eviction. In simple terms, this present judgement held that even the landlord’s legal heirs can get an eviction order based on their own bona fide need, despite the eviction case being originally filed based on the landlord’s bona fide need.

Read below to understand how the Supreme Court defined ‘bona fide need’ and what Section 21(1)(a) and clause (C) of Rule 16(2) say which led to the landlord’s son getting a favourable order of eviction of the unauthorised tenants.

How did this legal eviction of tenants fights span 60 years?

According to the order of the Supreme Court dated April 24, 2025, here is a timeline of events:

• October 13, 1952: The owner of the property (A) entered into a lease of 10 years with certain tenants (B) who intended to run a cinema film distribution business in the property.
• March 26, 1962: The property’s owner (A) sold the house in full along with its furnishings to another man (C).
• 1965: Tenants (B) refused to vacate the property despite their lease agreement not being renewed by the new landlord (C), hence a legal case of eviction was filed in court.
• 1974: The new landlord (C) lost the case in Supreme Court and thus the tenants continued to occupy the property with full legal rights.
• October 19, 1975: C filed another eviction suit against the tenants in district court.
• 1999: The case was put on trial in the High Court.
• January 9, 2013: High Court ruled in favour of the tenants and dismissed the landlord’s case. Sometime during the pendency of the legal proceedings, the landlord died, hence his children continued the fight.
• April 24, 2025: The landlord’s (C) children won the case in Supreme Court and the tenants were ordered to vacate the property by December 31, 2025 and pay the rent in full if not already.

Tenant’s lawyers said children cannot continue fighting this case since the eviction suit was filed by their father based on his bona fide need

The tenant’s lawyers said this:

• It is contended that legal heirs cannot continue the litigation on the basis of the need of their father and ought to prefer a fresh application for release in accordance with law, setting up their own requirement for release of the premises in question.
• Counsel for the respondents (tenants) contended that at no stage of the present proceedings have the legal heirs of the appellant set up their own need and requirement for the property in question. According to the Counsel, the legal heirs are already well settled and have no need for the property.

Supreme Court gives special emphasis on Section 21(7) which deals with legal heir’s rights in tenant evict cases

The Supreme Court of India has given special emphasis on Section 21(7) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.The Supreme Court of India said in its order: “Section 21(7) is an important provision which reads as under: – Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased.”

Avnish Sharma, Partner at Khaitan & Co, says: “The Supreme Court of India affirmed that even upon the landlord’s death, the right to seek eviction survives through legal heirs under Section 21(7) of the Act. The heirs can substitute the deceased’s need with their own, and need not file a fresh application. This reaffirms a liberal construction in favour of landlords’ familial needs.”

What did the Supreme Court of India say about grounds of tenant eviction?

According to the order of Supreme Court dated April 24, 2025, here’s what the court said:

• It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered. [See Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549],
• We have weighed the evidence on record and found that taking the case of the respondents (tenants) at its highest, and even if we believe each and every averment of the respondents (tenants) at best, the parties in financial terms could be said to be equally poised. The respondents (tenants) who own several businesses have managed to cling on to the premises for the last 63 years, after the expiry of the 10-year lease.
• In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one

Supreme Court used Rule 16 clause (C) interpretation to give relief to the landlord’s son(s) from unauthorised occupation of the property

The Supreme Court said: In Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 28, interpreting Rule 16 of the Rules of 1972, it was held as under:

“….The idea behind clause (c) is apparent i.e. where the landlord runs a huge business eviction may not be resorted to for expansion or diversification of the business by uprooting a tenant having a small business for a very long period of time. In such a situation if eviction is ordered it is definitely bound to cause greater hardship to the tenant.”

The Supreme Court said: “Applying the same interpretation, we find that in this case also nothing has been brought on record to show that the business of the appellant’s(landlord) family is so vast as to neutralize their bona fide claim to evict the respondents (tenant) from the suit property.”

Ashoo Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, says: “The Court clarified that Rule 16(2)(c) does not disqualify a landlord’s bona fide need merely because the landlord has other sources of income or runs a sizeable business. Special consideration must be given when the landlord’s dependent such as a son, or an unmarried, widowed, divorced, or judicially separated daughter, or a daughter of a male lineal descendant has completed technical education after the premises were let out, is unemployed in government service, and seeks to pursue self-employment.”

How the children proved their bona fide needs as grounds of eviction?

According to the order of the Supreme Court, here’s what the children’ s lawyers said to prove bona need:

• During the pendency of the proceeding in the High Court, the father died and his son has filed an affidavit stating that he has no source of income and that he does not have any other business.
• Further it is averred that there is no commercial property except this suit property and that the son is crippled on account of the malfunctioning of the hip bone and is moving with a limp.

Supreme Court final judgement: Evict the tenants

The Supreme Court of India said in its judgement dated April 24, 2025:

“…the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 09.01.2013 in Writ-A No. 8508 of 1999 is set aside. The respondents (tenants) are granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, subject to the respondents (tenants) filing the usual undertaking and clearing all arrears, if any, of rent/use and occupation charges, within 4 weeks from today.”

Gupta from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, says: “In view of the aforesaid this judgment has substantially expanded and clarified the scope of bona fide requirement under the Act by:

• Acknowledging the rights of legal heirs particularly dependents and persons with disabilities to continue eviction proceedings based on their own bonafide need.
• Emphasised the principle that tenants must show actual, evident hardship other than relying on the longer term of the tenancy and possession.

What might be the significance of this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about what might be the significance of this judgement. Here’s what they said:

Ashoo Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co: Summarised below are the four key principles set out in this judgement:

1. Legal heirs can continue as parties to the proceedings based on their own bona fide need

• Under Section 21(7), legal heirs are entitled to continue eviction proceedings on the basis of their own bona fide requirement, in substitution of the need of the deceased landlord.
• The bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) must be interpreted liberally to include the needs of family members.
• The Court reaffirmed that the bona fide requirement includes the needs of dependent family members, especially those with disabilities or no independent means of livelihood after the death of the original landlord, without filing a fresh application.

2. Tenant requires providing comparative hardship

• When weighing comparative hardship, the Court held that the tenant must show genuine efforts to find alternative accommodation and was unable to get it.

3. Landlord’s bona fide need cannot be superseded by longer duration of tenancy

• While a longer period of tenancy may weigh against eviction, it does not supersede the landlord’s right to seek eviction of the tenant from the property for real bona fide and urgent need of the landlord.
• If the tenant has access to suitable alternative accommodation, the implication of the longer/greater period of tenancy is neutralized/diminished.

4. Existence of other businesses or income does not undermine bona fide need

• The Court clarified that Rule 16(2)(c) does not disqualify a landlord’s bona fide need merely because the landlord has other sources of income or runs a sizeable business.
• Special consideration must be given when the landlord’s dependent such as a son, or an unmarried, widowed, divorced, or judicially separated daughter, or a daughter of a male lineal descendant has completed technical education after the premises were let out, is unemployed in government service, and seeks to pursue self-employment.

Avnish Sharma, Partner at Khaitan & Co: This judgment sets a strong precedent in favour of landlords seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It reinforces and clarifies several core legal principles:

1. Bona Fide Need Must Be Liberally Interpreted: The Court reiterated that “bona fide requirement” should not be interpreted narrowly. Even speculative income, modest earnings, or past participation in a family business do not negate the present, urgent need for business premises.
2. Comparative Hardship Must Be Real and Evident: The judgment underlines that a tenant who has occupied the premises for an extended period (in this case, over 70 years) cannot automatically claim greater hardship. The Court placed the burden on the tenant to show genuine efforts to secure alternative accommodation — a burden unmet in this case.
3. Non-Residential Use Considerations: Where the premises are used for business, Rule 16(2) of the 1972 Rules applies. However, the Court clarified that a landlord’s earlier business interests elsewhere do not automatically nullify the current necessity, especially where the need is pressing and not merely for expansion or commercial gain.

Heena Chheda, Partner, Economic Laws Practice (ELP):