Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) through LR Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D) through LRs and Ors.

📌 Key Points:

🔹Supreme Court held that bona fide need includes both the landlord’s and family members’ requirements.

🔹Bench: Justices M.M. Sundresh and K.V. Viswanathan.

🔹Tenant stayed for 73 years (63 after lease expiry) without seeking alternative accommodation.

🔹Landlord needed the property for his disabled, unemployed son.

🔹Tenant’s hardship claim was dismissed due to lack of proof.

🔹Citing Mohd. Ayub v. Mukesh Chand (2012), the Court favored the landlord’s claim.

Appeal allowed, eviction granted.

✅ Conclusion:
Family needs are part of bona fide requirement, and hardship without genuine effort to relocate can't block eviction

WATCH NOW!🚨

CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning Special!

In this important session, we’ll break down Maintenance Law in India in a simple and easy-to-understand way. Learn the meaning of maintenance, key provisions like Section 125 CrPC, and major case laws that are important for CLAT Legal Reasoning.

🔗Link to watch the video : https://youtu.be/X2UvuMAL9J4

This Parshuram Jayanti, let’s remember true warriors don’t just fight with weapons. They conquer with knowledge, fuel their journey with dreams, and persist with relentless hustle. ⚔️

Celebrate the spirit of wisdom and courage within you! ✔️

🚨WE WILL BE LIVE AT 2:15!🚨

🧠 Struggling with Critical Reasoning?

Lost in assumptions, conclusions & tricky passages? Don't worry — we've got you covered! 💡
Master the art of solving CR questions — from strengthening & weakening arguments to inference-based problems.

🔗Link to watch the live :https://youtube.com/live/bAd-oMDBoGE