In Brief
Nidhi, the owner of a non-residential property, sought eviction of a long-term tenant on grounds of bona fide need to house her elderly parents and grandparents. The Prescribed Authority granted the release order, but during the appeal, Nidhi married and settled with her IRS officer husband. The High Court dismissed her claim, holding that marriage rendered her need moot. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that a subsequent marriage does not extinguish bona fide need that existed before and continues after marriage. The Court emphasised that comparative hardship favoured the landlady (elderly parents needed care) over the tenant's relocatable sweet shop business, and restored the release order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.