6
Atul Kumar Aggarwal, the legal successor of Muralidhar Aggarwal, won the case and as a result, the legal heirs of the tenant late Mahendra Pratap Kakan will now have to be handed over the capture of the cinema hall.
New Delhi: After a 63 -year -long legal battle, finally ‘Mansarovar Palace’ cinema hall, which was finally occupied by Prayagraj’s good cinema hall, was captured by its real owner. The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the 63 -year -old renovation dispute in Prayagraj by ordering the capture of the “Mansarovar Palace” cinema hall to the family of the real owner. A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice KV Vishwanathan said, “We finally curtain the long -running case related to the cinema hall.
Time given till 31 December 2025 to hand over the cinema hall to the tenant
Accepting the appeal, he said that the High Court verdict and order is canceled on 9 January 2013 in the Rit of 1999. The court has given the tenant till 31 December 2025 to hand over the cinema hall. It would be subject to repaying all the outstanding arrears of fare/use and possession fees within four weeks from the date of the defendants and within four weeks from the date of the decision. There were two rounds of litigation in the legal quarrel and finally the legal successor Atul Kumar Aggarwal of the late Muralidhar Agarwal, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, won the case and as a result, the Tenant will be handed over to the Tenant Mahendra Pratap Kakan.
The apex court dismissed a 2013 decision of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing the eviction petition of the owner’s family and upheld the decision of an appellate authority, allowing the tenant to continue capturing the cinema hall. The dispute arises from a 1952 lease agreement, under which the tenant represented by the late Ram Adhikar Singh captured the cinema complex. Under the Uttar Pradesh Rent Control Act 1947, the earlier litigation ended in favor of the tenant, but a new application was filed in 1975 under the new 1972 rent control act.
The scheduled authority initially allowed eviction, citing real personal needs. However, it was reversed on the appeal, which challenged the High Court and eventually in the Supreme Court. Accepting the arguments of the owners in the second round, Justice Vishwanathan, while writing the decision of the 24-page, emphasized that the real need of the landlord should be understood “generously.
The verdict highlighted that the cinema complex was required for the maintenance of the landlord’s family, especially Muralidhar’s disabled son Atul Kumar, who had no independent means of livelihood. The apex court rejected the tenant’s plea whether the landlord’s family was involved in other businesses or had sufficient income. The judgment stated that the claims were baseless and irrelevant to the legal need to prove the real need.
Also read: Neeraj Udhwani’s journey of fun in Pahalgam proved to be the last, came from Dubai to friend’s wedding
