Supreme Court Ends 63-Year-Old Legal Battle Over Prayagraj’s ‘Mansarovar Palace’ Cinema Hall
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday finally brought closure to a tenancy dispute that had dragged on for more than six decades, directing the legal heirs of a tenant to hand over possession of the iconic Mansarovar Palace cinema hall in Prayagraj to the rightful owner’s family.
Bringing a legal saga that began in the 1960s to an end, a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and K V Viswanathan stated, “We finally bring the curtains down on this long-drawn litigation concerning the cinema hall.” The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the landlord’s legal heir, Atul Kumar Aggarwal, and overturned the 2013 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had previously ruled in favor of the tenant’s family.
The Supreme Court granted the current occupants until December 31, 2025, to vacate the premises, provided they submit the customary undertaking and clear any outstanding rent or occupancy charges within four weeks of the verdict.
The dispute originated from a 1952 lease agreement under which tenant Ram Agya Singh came into possession of the property. The ownership later changed hands in 1962, when Muralidhar Aggarwal acquired the cinema hall and initiated multiple legal proceedings seeking eviction, citing personal necessity.
Despite losing in earlier litigation under the Uttar Pradesh Rent Control Act of 1947, the landlord filed a fresh eviction suit in 1975 under the 1972 Act. Initially, the prescribed authority ruled in the landlord’s favor, acknowledging the bona fide need for the property. However, that decision was overturned on appeal, leading to further challenges in the High Court and eventually the Supreme Court.
In a detailed 24-page judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan, the Supreme Court emphasized that a landlord’s bona fide need should be “liberally construed.” The bench noted that the property was essential for the welfare of Atul Kumar, the differently-abled son of the late Murlidhar Aggarwal, who lacks independent means of income.
Rejecting the arguments presented by the tenant’s legal heirs, who claimed the landlord’s family had sufficient income from other sources, the court ruled that such assertions were neither supported by evidence nor relevant in determining genuine need under the law.
With this ruling, the decades-long legal wrangle concludes, paving the way for the rightful owner’s family to reclaim the historic cinema hall and move forward with their plans for its use.
