Bombay HC: Basic principles which court should follow while declaring any one member of the family as a tenant

Accommodation is a serious problem facing people. Practically in every tenanted premises along with the tenant scores of other relatives reside. After the death of the tenant there is always an attempt to claim tenancy rights in the suit premises with the help of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. It is, therefore, for the court to find out who really can get the benefit of Section 5(11)(c). For this the court has to take into consideration various factors such as who was accepted as a tenant by the landlord, whether other members who are putting up a claim had accepted that person as a tenant or whether they had resisted the claim of that person to tenancy at any time, and in some cases wishes of the deceased tenant. In this connection it is necessary to quote the relevant observations of this court in Gool Rustomji's case (supra);

"Whenever persons who are members of the tenant's family start a scramble for the tenancy rights, in a sense the war of succession begins. Succession to the property of the deceased is generally decided by applying the rules of succession forming part of the personal law of the parties. But the law of succession is substantially modified while resolving the disputes which arise after the death of the tenant, whether statutory or contractual. If the several members, who are residing as members of the tenant's family, fail to come to an agreement, then the Court has to make the choice and declare that one amongst them will be the tenant for claiming the protection of the Rent Act. The Court will have to take into account several relevant factors including the wishes of the deceased tenant. In all such cases the Court should have regard to the paramount collective interest of the family of the deceased tenant. The Court should make the choice in such a way that the person selected to be the tenant is likely to act in the interest of the family, like the Karta of a Hindu joint family or the paterfamilias. If the Court has in mind such considerations then it is likely that the Court will select the right person for looking after the collective interest of the tenant's family after his death. In any event the Court cannot declare more than one person as the tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act."{Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1991

Decided On: 19.06.2003

Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale Vs.  Avinash Krishnaji Biniwale and Ors.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Court can declare only one member of the family as a tenant

In Miss Gool Rustomji Lala v. Jal Rustomji Lal, 73 B.L.R. 600 Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act was considered by this Court. In that case the dispute was between a brother and a sister. Rustomji, the original tenant died on 12.3.1958. Admittedly the tenancy rights of the suit land were willed away by him in favour of his daughter the petitioner therein. The landlord gave notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner as also of respondent 1, the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application against the landlord in the Small Causes Court at Bombay praying for declaration that she alone was a tenant. An ex parte declaration was made in her favour to the effect that she was a tenant. Respondent 1 made application against the petitioner and also the landlady that as he was residing with the deceased tenant at the time of his death, he was entitled to a declaration under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act that he was a tenant of the suit flat. The court held that both the petitioner as well as respondent 1 therein were qualified to be the tenants under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. the matter travelled upto the High Court. It was argued before the High Court that word "any member" would include other members of the tenant's family residing with him. On the basis of Section 13(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1987, it was argued that singular shall include the plural. This contention was negatived by the court. It was held that under Section 13(b) of the General Clauses Act, singular shall include plural when there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context. Considering the subject and the context of the Rent Act and its object, the court was of the view that the court must declare only one person as the tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act after considering the claims of all those persons who say that they are members of the tenant's family and were residing with him at the time of his death.

10. In Shamkant Naik's case (supra) the widow of the tenant gave an undertaking before the High Court that the premises would be vacated by a particular date and in the meanwhile before that date her son and daughter instituted suit to claim tenancy under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was argued that the son and daughter had an independent right and they did not claim through the widow and as they were residing with the deceased tenant at the time of death, they would become tenants under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act and obstruction caused by them was justified. Relying on Gool Rustomji's case (supra) this Court held that the original tenant had died as far back as in 1962 and it was respondent 1 alone who was recognized as the tenant. Till the decree was finally passed against her no claim of whatsoever nature was set up by respondent 2 and 2(a). The court observed that it was obvious that it was a belated effort on the part of respondent 2 and 2(a) to delay and defeat the execution of decree passed against respondent 1. The court then observed that phrase "any member" of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death would not enable each and every member of the tenant's family to claim an independent right of tenancy in respect of the tenanted premises. "Any member" would mean "any one member".

12. Accommodation is a serious problem facing people. Practically in every tenanted premises along with the tenant scores of other relatives reside. After the death of the tenant there is always an attempt to claim tenancy rights in the suit premises with the help of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. It is, therefore, for the court to find out who really can get the benefit of Section 5(11)(c). For this the court has to take into consideration various factors such as who was accepted as a tenant by the landlord, whether other members who are putting up a claim had accepted that person as a tenant or whether they had resisted the claim of that person to tenancy at any time, and in some cases wishes of the deceased tenant. In this connection it is necessary to quote the relevant observations of this court in Gool Rustomji's case (supra);

"Whenever persons who are members of the tenant's family start a scramble for the tenancy rights, in a sense the war of succession begins. Succession to the property of the deceased is generally decided by applying the rules of succession forming part of the personal law of the parties. But the law of succession is substantially modified while resolving the disputes which arise after the death of the tenant, whether statutory or contractual. If the several members, who are residing as members of the tenant's family, fail to come to an agreement, then the Court has to make the choice and declare that one amongst them will be the tenant for claiming the protection of the Rent Act. The Court will have to take into account several relevant factors including the wishes of the deceased tenant. In all such cases the Court should have regard to the paramount collective interest of the family of the deceased tenant. The Court should make the choice in such a way that the person selected to be the tenant is likely to act in the interest of the family, like the Karta of a Hindu joint family or the paterfamilias. If the Court has in mind such considerations then it is likely that the Court will select the right person for looking after the collective interest of the tenant's family after his death. In any event the Court cannot declare more than one person as the tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act."

13. In cases such as the present one where the landlord is being denied the fruits of the decree by a member of the deceased tenant's family who had all along accepted the son's claim to tenancy the court has to be more careful. here the case of the plaintiff was that Arun Gokhale was the tenant and he resided in the suit premises along with his wife, mother and other children. This fact was not denied in the written statement. The petitioner who is his mother never resisted the acceptance of Arum as tenant. Admittedly the rent receipts were issued in the name of Arun; that was also not resisted by the petitioner. In fact in the written statement contention was taken up that the other legal heirs of Keshav Gokhale were not joined in this suit and, therefore, the suit was not tenable. That contention was negatived by the trial court. In appeal the decision of the trial court was confirmed. The matter travelled upto the supreme court and that view was confirmed. This is a case, therefore, where the judgment of this court in Gool Rustomji Lala's case (supra) and Shamkant Naik's case (supra) will squarely apply.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1991

Decided On: 19.06.2003

Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale Vs.  Avinash Krishnaji Biniwale and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0343/2003

Print Page

Bom HC: Court cannot declare more than one person as tenant U/S 5 (11) (c) of Bombay Rent Act

 In Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale vs. Avinash Krishnaji

Binjewale & ors (supra) contention of the respondents therein that

section 5 (11) (c) of the Bombay Rent Act would enable each and

every member of the tenant’s family to claim an independent right

in respect of the tenancy was rejected and it was held that any

member would mean ‘any one member.’

40. In Smt.Parvatibai w/o Bandu Marathe vs Smt Radhabai

Chaggan Bhadarkar decd by her legal heirs (supra), a learned Single

Judge of this Court held that it is only one member of the family who

can be recognized as a tenant by the Court and not all members

residing in the premises at the time of demise of the original tenant.

41. In Shamkant Tukaram Naik vs Dayanabai Shamsan

Dighodkar (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the

words “ any member of the tenant’s family residing with the tenant at

the time of his death” as used in section 5(11)(c) would not enable

each and every member of the tenant’s family to claim an

independent right in the tenancy, in respect of the tenanted premises.

It was held that ‘any member’ would mean only “one member”.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Writ Petition No. 2371 OF 1997

Vasant Sadashiv Joshi.  Vs  Yeshwant Shankar Barve

Print Page

Whether every family member of deceased tenant can claim independent right of tenancy?

The phrase "any member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death" would not enable each and every member of the tenant's family to claim an independent right of tenancy in respect of the tenanted premises. Any member would mean any one member.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Contempt Petn. No. 89 of 1986

Decided On: 21.02.1989

Shamkant Tukaram Naik Vs. Dayanabai Shamsan Dighodkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.C. Agarwal, J.

Citation : 1989 MhLJ857

Print Page

Whether widow of deceased tenant is entitled to inherit commercial tenancy even if she was not using said premises along with deceased tenant?

After the 1978 Amendment, it is only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of the death of the original tenant, that any heir of the deceased tenant acquires tenancy rights under the Rent Act. From this, it follows that under the unamended 1947 Act, the Division Bench of this Court had recognised that the provisions of 1947 Act were not made to supersede the rights to inheritance of tenancy vesting in the heirs on the death of the original tenant. Further, after the amendment, such rights shall accrue to the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his demise. In both situations, therefore, devolution of the tenancy upon the heirs was contemplated, except that after the 1978 amendment, the devolution upon the heirs in accordance with law of inheritance was made subject to absence of any member of the tenant's family using the tenanted premises for the purposes for which they were let out along with the original tenant, at the time of the demise of such original tenant.

11. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and decree made by the Appeal Court is either in excess of jurisdiction or the same is vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity. In this case, there is no serious dispute that the suit, which has now been decreed, was instituted by the wife of the original tenant and consequently a legal heir of the original tenant. Assuming, therefore, that the wife was not using the suit premises for commercial purposes, at the time of death of her husband, the wife can always claim tenancy on the basis of heir-ship in view of peculiar provisions contained in Section 7(15)(d) of the Rent Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 471 of 2015

Decided On: 25.08.2015

Romeo Pascol Kinny Vs. Savitri

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Print Page

How to ascertain whether a person is family member of tenant?

The question as to whether a person is a member of the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant's family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control legislation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7161 of 2003

Decided On: 01.12.2005

 Kailasbhai Shukaram Tiwari Vs.  Jostna Laxmidas Pujara and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2006 SC 741

Print Page

Whether suit by landlord against unknown legal heirs of tenant is maintainable?

The correct position in law on the contrary is that while ordinarily heirs must and ought to be named, there are circumstances in which they cannot be so named, and such a suit is maintainable and may result in a valid decree even for possession. This is the judgment of Patel J in VB Kapadia.

20. The correct position in law is thus the one enunciated in VB Kapadia and as reflected in the decision of BR Gavai J in Yusuf Hussain, and Ketkar J in Vasudha Dnyaneshwar Jawalkar. Such a suit without naming individual legal heirs and even without naming another defendant as an unlawful occupant cannot be said to be not maintainable, nor will it result in a decree that is a nullity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 12449 of 2015

Decided On: 11.04.2018

The Trustees of The NM Petit Charity Fund Vs. Jal Minocher Unwala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Patel, J.

Print Page

When legal heirs of deceased tenant will be entitled to get tenancy rights?

In Romeo Pascol Kinny and Ors. v. Savitri wd/o Dr. Umashankar Dwivedi, this Court held:46

"17. Similarly, in the context of the definition of the term 'tenant' under section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("1947 Act"), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajaram Brindavan Upadhyaya & Ors. vs. Ramraj Raghunath Upadhyaya & Ors., MANU/MH/0236/1977 : 1977 Mh.L.J. 792 has held that the said provisions were not meant to supersede the right of inheritance to the tenancy vesting in the heirs on the death of the tenant under the personal law of the parties. The provisions contained in section 5(11)(c) were however amended by the Bombay Rent Act No. XXII of 1978 which entered into force on 23 October 1978. In the context of the amended provisions, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of C.J. Ghadiali & Ors. vs. Z.B. Wadiwalla, MANU/MH/0465/1981 : 1981 Mh.L.J. 876 held that there was complete change in law since the decision in the case of Rajaram (supra) and after the 1978 Amendment, it is only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of the death of the original tenant, that any heir of the deceased tenant acquires tenancy rights under the Rent Act. From this, it follows that under the un-amended 1947 Act, the Division Bench of this Court had recognized that the provisions of 1947 Act were not made to supersede the rights to inheritance of tenancy vesting in the heirs on the death of the original tenant. Further, after the amendment, such rights shall accrue to the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, only in the absence of member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his demise. In both situations, therefore, devolution of the tenancy upon the heirs was contemplated, except that after the 1978 amendment, the devolution upon the heirs in accordance with law of inheritance was made subject to absence of any member of the tenant's family using the tenanted premises for the purposes for which they were let out along with the original tenant, at the time of the demise of such original tenant."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 514 of 2003

Decided On: 04.08.2017

Namdeo Dashrath Naik and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Mahadeo Parab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Patel, J.

Print Page

When family member of tenant is entitled to get tenancy rights after death of original tenant?

In Ashok Chintaman (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 5(11)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, observed as under:

"In the present case we are concerned with clause (c) of sub-section (11) of Section 5 which provides that "tenant" includes any member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death as may be decided in default of agreement by the court. There are two requisites which must be fulfilled before a person is entitled to be called a "tenant" under clause (c); firstly, he must be a member of the tenant's family and secondly, he must have been residing with the tenant at the time of his death. Besides fulfilling these conditions he must have been agreed upon to be a tenant by the members of the tenant's family; in default of such agreement the decision of the court shall be binding on such members."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2387 of 1992

Decided On: 09.08.2005

Shaikh Abdul Reheman Mohammad Ashraf and Shri Shaikh Jafar Mohamed Ashraf

Vs.

 Shri Shaikh Mohamad Haji Papamiya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Citation : 2005 (5)BomCR 6

Print Page

Whether relative of deceased tenant is entitled to get tenancy rights as per S 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra rent control Act?

The question still arises as to whether respondent No. 2 can be considered to be a member of the family of respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the cousin of the husband of respondent No. 1. It also cannot be disputed that he came to reside with tenant-respondent No. 1 and her husband in the year 1980, and was not residing with them since the commencement of the tenancy some time in the year 1973 or 1975, (the precise year when the tenancy commenced is not clear from the record). It is also admitted by respondent No. 2 that he had his own separate and independent business and that he was not looking after the business of the husband of respondent No. 1. The husband of respondent No. 1 has a trading business in coal, whereas respondent No. 2 claims to have a transport, business and he owned a truck which he was plying for gain.

12. It was sought to be argued before us that since the father of the husband of the tenant-respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2 are real brothers, there is blood relationship between the two and therefore it must be held that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1. This submission overlooks the fact that the tenant in question is not the husband of respondent No. 1 but the respondent No. 1 herself. It cannot be said that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are blood relations. That apart, the question still remains as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be held that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1. It is futile to attempt to lay down a strait, jacket formula as to who can be considered to be the member of the family of the tenant, particularly in the absence of definition of 'family' in the Act. Having regard to relevant considerations, the question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court has relied upon some decisions of this Court wherein the question raised was whether the brother was a member of the family, or a case where the tenant had to go to a foreign country on business, leaving behind his parents and family members, including brothers and sisters. In such a factual situation, this Court held that the persons who occupied the premises were the members of the family of the tenant. Such is not the case here.

13. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2 that the family of the husband of respondent No. 1, including his uncles and cousins, always resided together. In fact the evidence on record discloses that respondent No. 1 resided in the premises with her husband only. Respondent No. 2 joined them sometime in the year 1980, and he had his own separate business. There is nothing to show that they ever resided together at any earlier point of time or that their fathers ever lived together. In fact the evidence on record is to the contrary. After he came to reside with respondent No. 1 in the year 1980, an alternate premises was acquired by the tenant and she shifted to those premises sometime in the year 1981. Soon thereafter this dispute arose, because the tenant having shifted to another premises at Borivili, the premises in question continued to be occupied by respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to hold that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1, the tenant.

14. The question as to whether a person is a member of the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant's family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control legislation.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the courts below were justified in holding, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the premises in question was let out to respondent No. 1 which was occupied by her and her husband. She acquired another premises at Borivili where she shifted in the year 1981. Before that, in the year 1980 itself, respondent No. 2 had come to reside with them and he continued to occupy the demised premises even after respondent No. 1 and her husband shifted to another accommodation at Borivili. Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be a member of the family of respondent No. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the context of rent control legislation, with which we are concerned in the instant case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7161 of 2003

Decided On: 01.12.2005

Kailasbhai Shukaram Tiwari  Vs. Jostna Laxmidas Pujara and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2006 SC 741

Print Page

Whether S 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra rent control Act is contrary to Hindu succession Act?

1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the MRC Act") is inconsistent with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short "the HS Act) as amended from time to time. The argument is that to the extent section 7(15)(d) of the MRC Act provides protection to the family member, who was residing with the deceased tenant, at the time of his death, even though such family member is not a heir of the deceased tenant, deprives the heir of the deceased tenant of his right and status under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

 We are of the view that the area and field covered by the MRC Act is entirely different. The provision such as definition of the term 'tenant' appearing in section 7(15) must be read in the backdrop of the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the MRC Act. It is not to create a separate class or to carve out a distinct rule of succession but to merely enable somebody to step in place of the deceased tenant until the rights under the general law are determined that such a provision has been inserted and for protection of the interests of both, the landlord and tenant.

Therefore, there appears to be no conflict in the two provisions. The HS Act amends and codifies the law relating to succession amongst Hindus and therefore the overriding effect given to it by section 4(1)(b) over other law in force immediately before commencement of the HS Act relating to intestate succession amongst Hindus, that law ceased to apply insofar as it is inconsistent with any other provisions contained in the HS Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1853 of 2014

Decided On: 11.08.2015

 Urmi Deepak Kadia Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.

Print Page

Whether interest in tenancy can be transferred by way of will?

The principal question that arises for consideration in these two appeals, preferred against the judgments of the High Court of Bombay, is whether tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be devised by a will. Ancillary thereto arises the question whether the words 'assign' and 'transfer' in Section 15 of the Act include 'bequest'. 

From a plain reading of Section 5(11)(c)(i) it is obvious that the legislative prescription is first to give protection to members of the family of the tenant residing with him at the time of his death. The basis for such prescription seems to be that when a tenant is in occupation of premises the tenancy is taken by him not only for his own benefit but also for the benefit of the members of the family residing with him. Therefore, when the tenant dies, protection should be extended to the members of the family who were participants in the benefit of the tenancy and for whose needs as well the tenancy was originally taken by the tenant. It is for this avowed object, the legislature has, irrespective of the fact whether such members are 'heirs' in the strict sense of the term or not, given them the first priority to be treated as tenants. It is only when such members of the family are not there, the 'heirs' will be entitled to be treated as tenants as decided, in default of agreement, by the court. In other words, all the heirs are liable to be excluded if any other member of the family was staying with the tenant at the time of his death. When Section 15, which prohibits sub-letting, assignment or transfer, is read in juxtaposition with Section 5(11)(c)(i)it is patently clear that the legislature intends that in case no member of the family as referred to in the first part of the clause is there the 'heir', who under the ordinary mode of succession would necessarily be a relation of the deceased, should be treated as a tenant of the premises subject, however, to the decision by the court in default of agreement. The words "as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court" as appearing in Section 5(11)(c)(i) are not without significance. These words in our view have been incorporated to meet a situation where there are more than one heirs. In such an eventuality the landlord may or may not agree to one or the other of them being recognised as a 'tenant'. In case of such disagreement the court has to decide who is to be treated as 'tenant'. Therefore, if 'heir' is to include a legatee of the will then the above-quoted words cannot be applied in case of a tenant who leaves behind more than one legatee for in that case the wishes of the testator can get supplanted, on the landlord's unwillingness to respect the same, by the ultimate decision of the court. In other words, in case of a testamentary disposition, where the wish or will of the deceased has got to be respected a decision by the court will not arise and that would necessarily mean that the words quoted above will be rendered nugatory. What we want to emphasise is it is not the heirship but the nature of claim that is determinative. In our considered view the legislature could not have intended to confer such a right on the testamentary heir. Otherwise, the right of the landlord to recover possession will stand excluded even though the original party (the tenant) with whom the landlord had contracted is dead. Besides, a statutory tenancy is personal to the tenant. In certain contingencies as contemplated in Section 5(11)(c)(i) certain heirs are unable to succeed to such a tenancy. To this extent, a departure is made from the general law.

15. The matter may be viewed from another angle also. If the word 'heir' is to be interpreted to include a 'legatee' even a stranger may have to be inducted as a tenant for there is no embargo upon a stranger being a legatee.

The contention of Mr Sorabjee that 'heir' under a will may be confined to only members of the family cannot be accepted for there is no scope for giving such a restrictive meaning to that word in the context in which it appears in the Act as earlier noticed, unlike in other Rent Acts.

16. Coming now to the meaning of the words 'assign' or 'transfer' as appearing in Section 15 we find that 'transfer' has been qualified by the words 'in any other manner' and we see no reason why it should be restricted to mean only transfer inter vivos. As has been rightly pointed out by the High Court in the impugned judgment the Transfer of Property Act limits its operation to transfer inter vivos and, therefore, the meaning of the word 'transfer' as contained therein cannot be brought in aid for the purpose of the Act. On the contrary, the wide amplitude of the words 'in any other manner' clearly envisages that the word 'transfer' has been used therein in a generic sense so as to include transfer by testament also.

Supreme Court of India

Vasant Pratap Pandit vs Dr Anant Trimbak Sabnis on 12 April, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (3) 481, JT 1994 (3) 267

Author: M M.K.

Bench: Mukherjee M.K. (J)

Print Page

When mistress can be held to be a member of decased tenant's family?

Mr. Bhatt also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Ramchandra G. Gharpure (since deceased, by heirs and legal representatives) and ors. vs. Madhav Dattatraya Phadke and ors.3 as well as another decisions, in which it has been  held that even a mistress can be held to be a member of the decased tenant's family.

Bombay High Court

Dharamvir Ishwarlal Joshi vs Jayant Ramchandra Patwardhan And ... on 21 August, 2015

Bench: M.S. Sonak

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2015 ALONGWITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 349 OF 2015

Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 140

Print Page