| Photo credit: Manvender Vashist Lav/PTI
On Thursday, the Supreme Court brought “curtains” in a 63 -year -old lease dispute ordering the tenant’s legal heir to deliver the possession of the film hall of the “Mansarovar Palace” in Prayagraj to the real owner.
“Finally, we demolish the curtains in this long -standing litigation on the film room. For the reasons indicated above, the appeal and the sentence and the order of the Superior Court of January 9, 2013 in writing is allowed … 1999 is reserved,” said a bank of judges MM Sundesh and KV Viswanathan.
The Court granted time until December 31, 2025 to the respondents for vacancies and deliver on a “peaceful possession” of the demand facilities.
The same would be “subject to respondents who present the usual company and the cleaning of all the delays, if there are, or the charges of rent/use and occupation” within four weeks from the date of the verdict.
The legal fight saw two rounds of litigation and finally Atul Kumar Aggarwal, the legal heir of the late muralidharwal, won the case and, as a result, legal heirs of the tenant, the deceased Mahendra Pratap Kakan, now has to handle.
The Superior Court set aside a 2013 decision of the Superior Court of Allahabad, which dismissed the dislodge pleography of the decision of the owner’s family and the stimulating authority, allowing the tenant continuous possession of the film room.
The dispute comes from a 1952 lease contract under what the tenant, represented by the late Ram Agya Singh, occupied the cinema facilities.
Murlidhar bought the property in 1962 and filed multiple eviction demands over the years, citing the need for good faith.
The previous litigation under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Control Law of 1947 ended up in favor of the tenant, but there was a new eviction application in 1975 under the Daughter Revenue Control 1972 Law.
The initial prescribed authority allowed the eviction, citing the genuoment personal need.
However, this was reversed in the appeal, which caused a challenge in the Superior Court and, possible, in the Supreme Court.
Allowing the supplication of the owners in the second round, Judge Viswanthan, who writes a 24 -page sentence, emphasized that the good faith requirement of an owner must be “liberally conud.” The verdict stressed that the cinema facilities were necessary to support the owner’s family, particularly Atul Kumar, the disabled son of Murlidhar, who had no independent livelihoods.
The Superior Court broke the tenant’s arguments that the owner’s family was involved in other companies or had adequate income.
The verdict said that claims were not grounded and irrelevant to the legal requirement to demonstrate a genuine need.
Posted on April 24, 2025