In Brief
The appellant, a landlord, sought possession of a non-residential property from a tenant to accommodate her elderly parents and grandparents. She filed a release application under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, which was granted. However, during the appeal, she married and relocated with her spouse. The lower courts dismissed her claim, holding that marriage extinguished her need for the premises. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that marriage as a natural life event does not extinguish bona fide family accommodation needs. The court emphasised that subsequent events must be assessed by considering comparative hardship; here, the tenant had alternative business options while the landlord lacked other premises for elderly care.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.