Whether is it necessary for the landlord to issue a fresh notice to legal heirs after the death of the original tenant?

So, I am afraid the applicants' contention that they should have been notified under Section 15 of the MRC Act afresh does not pass the judicial muster. There is no privity of contract between the landlords and the applicants 1 and 2. They only trace their right through their deceased ancestor, the original tenant. Then they take those rights with all the liabilities or burdens as well. As the legal heirs, they could press forward only the plea available to the deceased original tenant. In other words, they have simply stepped into the original tenant's shoes. Nothing more.

17. In that context, I reckon the notice issued to the original tenant binds his legal representatives. So long as they have no independent claim of tenancy viz-a-viz the landlords, their insistence on having a fresh notice to quit does not arise. I, therefore, hold that the law does not mandate that the legal representatives of the deceased tenant should be put to a fresh notice on the original tenant's death. To that extent, the concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered with.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 867 of 2012

Decided On: 27.08.2019

 Sunanda Ramkrishna Ayare  Vs.  Harishchandra Gopal Parab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Citation: 2012(2) MHLJ 251

Print Page

Whether agricultural tenancy is heritable on death of tenant in case of lands belonging to trust or educational institution?

 There is an another angle.   During the pendency of
appeal the original appellant has expired.   The legal heirs are

brought on record.  In view of the clear pronouncement of law by
the Apex Court in the case of Shriram Mandir Sansthan (cited
supra) in case of the lands belonging to a trust or an educational
institution falling within Section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy
Act, the tenancy is not heritable on the death of the tenant.  We
have made reference to this fact since the said subsequent event
has taken place during the pendency of present appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.39 OF 2005.
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.516 of 1992 (D).
Digamber s/o Pandhari Bhise,

             V
   Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
  CORAM:     B.R.GAVAI AND
          P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
          DATE :     23rd NOVEMBER, 2015.
Citation:2016(5) MHLJ163

Print Page

Whether there is conflict between Hindu succession Act and Maharashtra rent control Act?

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.  The reliance placed on this
clause by Mr. Thakkar is entirely misplaced.  Once we understand the
controversy in the above manner, then, we do not see how we can apply
the mandate of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.  That Article has
no application.
We have already held that nothing in clause (d) of section
7(15) of the MRC Act interferes with the rule of succession enacted by
the HS Act.   That definition of the term 'tenant' has been inserted to
mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any
premises and includes firstly such person who is a tenant or who is a
deemed tenant or who is a sub ­tenant as permitted under a contract or
by the permission or consent of the landlord or who has derived title
under a tenant or to whom interest in premises has been assigned or
transferred as permitted by virtue of or under the provisions of any of
the repealed Acts.  Secondly, it includes a person who is deemed to be a
tenant under section 25 of the MRC Act or a person to whom interest in
premises has been assigned or transferred as permitted under section 26
of the MRC Act and finally, in relation to any premises when the tenant

dies, whether the death occurred before or after the commencement of
this Act, any member of the tenant's family, who, when the premises are
let for residence, is residing or when the premises are let for education,
business, trade or storage, is using the premises for any such purpose
with the tenant at the time of his death or in the absence of such
member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided, in the
absence of agreement, by the Court, will step in.   If there was any
intention to interfere with the law of succession and the rule laid down
thereunder, the words “any heir of the deceased tenant” would not have
been appearing in the definition at all.  We also find that the definition
read in its entirety reveals as to how the tenant means any person by
whom   or   on   whose   account   rent   is   payable   for   any   premises   and
includes, after the death of the tenant, a member of the tenant's family.
It is not as if only a right is created by this provision in the member of
the family residing with the tenant or carrying on business with him but
there is a duty and obligation while permitting the member of the
family to step in after the tenant's demise and that is to pay rent and
other charges for the premises in terms of the MRC Act and also to
abide by it so far as the matters covered by it.  Therefore, we do not
find   that   there   is   any   substance   in   the   contentions   of   the   learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1853 OF 2014

Urmi Deepak Kadia  Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM :­ S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON :­ AUGUST 11, 2015
Citation;2015 (6) MHLJ 462 Bom

Print Page