Supreme Court: Legal heirs of deceased tenant inherit tenancy as joint tenants

We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 

Decided On: 19.04.2018

 Suresh Kumar Kohli   Vs.  Rakesh Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

 Citation: 2018 (6) SCC 708,MANU/SC/0432/2018

Print Page

Bombay HC: Joint family of deceased tenant can not claim tenancy right in respect of tenanted premises

From a plain reading of section 5 (11) (c) (i) of the Act,

it is difficult to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the

petitioner/defendant no.2 that the provisions recognize that every

member of the joint family or the joint family itself becomes a tenant

for the purposes of the Bombay Rent Act. The introductory words of

section 5 (11) defining tenant are crystal clear when it describes a

“tenant” to mean “any person” by whom or whose account, rent is

payable and would include as defined in sub-clause (c) of subsection

5 (11) any member of the tenants family residing with the

tenant at the time of his death. Sub-clause (c) is required to be read

in conjunction with the preceding relevant sub-clauses namely sub

clauses (aa), (b) which also uses a similar phrase ‘any person’. Thus

a tenant necessary has to be any person as recognized by section

5(11) and not otherwise and certainly not a joint family as a unit.

The legislature has avoided to include any such incident to include a

joint family to be a tenant within the meaning of section 5(11).

33. In the present context, to interpret the phrase ‘any person’

as used in section 5 (11) of the Act to include any member of the

joint family as asserted by the petitioner/defendant no.2, would lead

to an absurdity. This more particularly contrary to the election as

exercised by the family of the deceased tenant Raghunath, in

choosing Achyut –defendant no.1 (Raghunath’s son) to succeed to

the tenancy. The absurdity would be two fold firstly it would amount

to reading something into the definition of tenant, (Section 5(11) (c)

(i)), what has been not provided for and/or excluded by the

legislature; secondly it would be contrary to the conduct of the

parties who wholeheartedly accepted, chose and elected that the

tenant for the suit premises after the death of Raghunath would be

defendant no 1–Achyut. Once this is a factually established position

on record the petitioner/ defendant no.2 was not permitted and/or

was estopped from taking a contrary stand.

34. In my opinion, such an assertion as made on behalf of

the petitioner/defendant No.2 would lead to another absurdity

namely, that it would create an insurmountable uncertainty for the

landlord in pursuing eviction proceedings against a tenant as

permissible in law. This for the reason that when a landlord grants

the premises on tenancy it is a contract of tenancy as entered with a

specific person (tenant). The landlord expects fulfillment of legal

obligations from the tenant. The law therefore does not envisage

that the landlord would be required to deal with all members of the

joint family, a situation as in the present case when on the death of

the original tenant he is replaced by another named member of a

family. Hence, if such an argument by the petitioner/defendant no.2

to recognize him as a tenant, is accepted the landlord would never

obtain an eviction of a tenant as may be permissible to him in law as

every successive member of the tenant’s family would start claiming

legal rights and protection under the provisions of the Bombay Rent

Act. Such can never be the object and intention of this rent

legislation.

35. In the present case, the intention and conduct on the

part of the defendants, in my opinion was quite clear namely to

permit defendant no.1-Achyut to inherit tenancy after the death of

the original tenant his father–Raghunath. The rent receipts were

accordingly issued in favour of Achyut on the death of Raghunath.

Certainly, on two occasions namely when the original tenant-

Raghunath expired in the year 1971, and secondly when in 1979

defendant no.1-Achyut moved out of the suit premises, it was

available to the father of defendant no.2 Sadashiv to assert a position

that he had become the lawful tenant of the plaintiff’s landlords.

Sadashiv however, chose not to assert any such right. He throughout

accepted the defendant no.1- Achyut to be the tenant since the year

1971 that is from the death of his father Raghunath. Resultantly, it

was no defence for defendant no.2 to assert that he would be now

the lawful tenant having independent rights merely because his

father Sadashiv was a member of Raghunath’s joint family. It needs to

be observed that there is no legal foundation to the assertion of the

petitioner/defendant no. 2 referring to section 5(11) (c) in as much

as this provision is attracted only when a tenant dies. In the present

case defendant no.1 –Achyut who was accepted to be the tenant by

the petitioner/ defendant no.2 is surviving and has moved out of the

suit premises. In this situation it is difficult to comprehend, as to how

section 5(11) (c) can be pressed into service by the petitioner, to

assert any legal right to be a tenant .

36. The inevitable consequence in law on defendant no.1-

Achyut , (the tenant) moving out of the suit premises, brought

about a situation that defendant no.2-Vasant could not have asserted

any legal rights as a tenant, so as to contest the eviction proceedings

as instituted by the plaintiffs in the present Suit. In any event earlier

to the filing of the present suit petitioner/defendant no. 2 even qua

the plaintiffs never asserted any independent rights of tenancy in any

proceedings as could be brought by him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Writ Petition No. 2371 OF 1997

Vasant Sadashiv Joshi.  Vs  Yeshwant Shankar Barve

CORAM : G.S.Kulkarni, J.

DATE : 3 JANUARY, 2020

Print Page

Parameters for declaring one member as tenant amongst several members

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Spl. C. A. No 1739 of 1967

Decided On: 29.01.1971

Gool Rustomji Lala Vs. Jal Rustomji Lala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Bhasme, J.

Citation:  AIR 1972 BOM 113

Print Page

Whether brother of deceased tenant is her family member entitled to get tenancy rights after her death?

 Section 3(g) defines 'family', in relation to landlord which includes the spouse that is husband or wife of a person, male lineal descendants which means his or her son, son's son, son's son's son and so on, parents, grandparents, unmarried, widowed, divorced daughter or granddaughter, etc. The definition given in the Clause is an inclusive one and is supposed to be construed in its technical meaning which implies what is not given has to be excluded as not forming part of the family of landlord or tenant. Therefore, sisters and brothers of landlord and tenant are excluded from his/her family. In the facts of present case, the Appellant being brother of deceased tenant cannot be held to be the 'family' as the inclusive list given under the Act clearly omits "brother and sister" and the same cannot be read therein as the list has to be read and interpreted strictly.

14. Assuming, for the sake of arguments that the Appellant is an heir of Lalita, for devolution of tenancy, on the death of Lalita, the Appellant has to be a 'tenant' within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. As per Section 3(a)(1), in the case of residential building, in the event of death of a tenant, for heirs to be treated as tenant, the statute requires them to prove that they have been normally residing with the deceased tenant at the time of his/her death. The term used in the Section is 'heir' which implies that not any of the family member residing with the tenant would succeed to the tenancy, but only the heirs of tenant normally residing with him/her. The words "normally residing with him" suggests that only those heirs would inherit the tenancy rights of deceased tenant who resided with him ordinarily in normal course and not temporarily. The legislative intent appears to be that only those heirs would inherit tenancy who normally resided with the tenant and not occasionally. In the present case, the Appellant claims that he has been carrying on business in the property along with his deceased sister Lalita and had been ordinarily living with her because of the medical business they were running. The Appellant being the brother of deceased-Lalita had no reason to normally reside with his married sister. Be it noted, in her written statement filed in the release application, Lalita has not averred that her brother-Appellant Durga Prasad was living with her and that he was taking care of her. As rightly held by the Courts below, Durga Prasad is neither a 'heir' within the meaning of Section 3(a) nor fall under the definition of 'family' as per Section 3(g) of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1305-06 of 2017

Decided On: 07.02.2017

 Durga Prasad  Vs. Narayan Ramchandaani (D) thr. L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation: 2017(5) All MR 468(SC), AIR 2017 SC 915,(2017) 5 SCC69

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

Whether plaint filed by brothers claiming interest in property purchased in the name of one brother can be rejected?

 The first and foremost of the circumstance relevant to the question at hand is the fact that the property in question was tenanted by Smt. Stella Martins-mother of the parties before us. It is common ground that at the time of her demise she had not left behind any Will nor is there any other material to suggest that she intended that the tenancy right held by her in the suit property should be transferred to the Appellant to the exclusion of her husband, C.F. Martins or her daughters, Respondents in this appeal, or both. In the ordinary course, upon the demise of the tenant, the tenancy rights should have as a matter of course devolved upon her legal heirs that would include the husband of the deceased and her children (parties to this appeal). Even so, the reason why the property was transferred in the name of the Appellant was the fact that the Corporation desired such transfer to be made in the name of one individual rather than several individuals who may have succeeded to the tenancy rights. A specific averment to that effect was made by Plaintiffs-respondents in para 7 of the plaint which was not disputed by the Appellant in the written statement filed by him. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that transfer of rights in favour of the Appellant was not because the others had abandoned their rights but because the Corporation required the transfer to be in favour of individual presumably to avoid procedural complications in enforcing rights and duties qua in property at a later stage. It is on that touchstone equally reasonable to assume that the other legal representatives of the deceased-tenant neither gave up their tenancy rights in the property nor did they give up the benefits that would flow to them as legal heirs of the deceased tenant consequent upon the decision of the Corporation to sell the property to the occupants. That conclusion gets strengthened by the fact that the parties had made contributions towards the sale consideration paid for the acquisition of the suit property which they would not have done if the intention was to concede the property in favour of the Appellant. Superadded to the above is the fact that the parties were closely related to each other which too lends considerable support to the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant-appellant held the tenancy rights and the ostensible title to the suit property in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis his siblings who had by reason of their contribution and the contribution made by their father continued to evince interest in the property and its ownership. Reposing confidence and faith in the Appellant was in the facts and circumstances of the case not unusual or unnatural especially when possession over the suit property continued to be enjoyed by the Plaintiffs who would in law and on a parity of reasoning be deemed to be holding the same for the benefit of the Appellant as much as the Appellant was holding the title to the property for the benefit of the Plaintiffs.

25. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances when seen in the light of the substantial amount paid by late Shri C.F. Martins, the father of the parties, thus puts the Appellant in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis the said four persons. Such being the case the transaction is completely saved from the mischief of Section 4 of the Act by reason of the same falling under Sub-Section 3(b) of Section 4. The suit filed by the Respondents was not, therefore, barred by the Act as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The view taken by the High Court to that effect is affirmed though for slightly different reasons.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6645 of 2003

Decided On: 27.04.2012

 Marcel Martins  Vs. M. Printer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.

Citation: (2012) 5 SCC 342.

Print Page

Whether one of legal heir of deceased tenant can object to execution of eviction decree on ground that he is in possession of tenanted premises?

 Even otherwise, the intervention at this belated stage of execution proceedings, in the fact and circumstances of the case, seems to be a deliberate attempt to nullify the decree passed in favour of the Appellant herein as when Respondent No. 1 filed objections Under Section 47 Order XXI of the Code, he claimed to be in possession of the suit premises, however, he failed to produce any evidence except two rent receipts for the months of December, 1993 and January 1994 that too when the Respondent No. 1 in his objection petition filed in the execution proceedings of the eviction decree has himself admitted that the there exists a dispute between him and Respondent No. 2 and they had parted their ways.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 of 2014)

Decided On: 19.04.2018

 Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and Ors.

Print Page

Whether tenancy rights of other legal heirs of deceased tenant are wiped off if rent receipt is in name of one legal heir?

 This ratio raises the logical question as to whether bequest of tenancy by a will, deed or gift, will deprive another of a statutory right under Section 5(11)(c)? This question has been succinctly answered in the case of Ramesh S. Kale v. Madhav B. Wadnere (2001) Supp. Bom.C.R. 321 by this very Court. "Merely because the person in whose name, receipts are issued happened to be one of the legal heirs of the original tenant, the right of the other heirs are not wiped off. In fact, the law in this regard is well established as already stated above, i.e. upon the death if the original tenant, tenancy rights are inherited by all the legal heirs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 46 of 2000 in L.C. Suit No. 1743 of 1992

Decided On: 11.07.2006

 Zahid Ahmedali Mazgaonwalla Vs. Gulshan Pyarali Mazgaonwalla

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: 2006(5) ALLMR 49

Print Page

Whether one legal heir of tenant can claim tenancy without making other legal heirs party to suit?

At this stage Mr. Ghaisas, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 appeared in Court and sought leave to make submissions in the matter. On leave being granted, he submitted that in the case in hand there was no dispute that the rent receipts were issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 alone and therefore there was no need of filing the suit against the petitioner or Joining the petitioner as party to the said Civil Suit No. 170 of 1970. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 however was unable to point out any provisions in law which besides contending about exclusive tenancy rights in favour of the person in whose name the receipts are issued pursuant to the death of the original tenant. Merely because the person in whose name receipts are issued happened to be one of the legal heirs of the original tenant, the right of other heirs are not wipped off. In fact, the law in this regard is well established as already stated above i.e. upon death of the original tenant, tenancy rights are inherited by all the legal heirs. At the cost of repetition it can be stated that the Trial Court has found that the petitioner was residing with the original tenant and he is one of the legal representatives of the original tenant. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred above, the petitioner was clearly a necessary and proper parly to the suit and in the absence thereof, the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 170 of 1970 cannot be held to be binding upon the petitioner.

Bombay High Court

Ramesh Shankar Kale vs Madhav Bhimshankar Wadnere & Ors. on 7 July, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2001) 2 BOMLR 945

Bench: R Khandeparkar

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of deceased tenant?

 We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.

21. Even otherwise, the intervention at this belated stage of execution proceedings, in the fact and circumstances of the case, seems to be a deliberate attempt to nullify the decree passed in favour of the Appellant herein as when Respondent No. 1 filed objections Under Section 47 Order XXI of the Code, he claimed to be in possession of the suit premises, however, he failed to produce any evidence except two rent receipts for the months of December, 1993 and January 1994 that too when the Respondent No. 1 in his objection petition filed in the execution proceedings of the eviction decree has himself admitted that the there exists a dispute between him and Respondent No. 2 and they had parted their ways.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 of 2014)

Decided On: 19.04.2018

 Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 6 SCC 708:AIR 2018 SC 2708

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of deceased tenant?

We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey
(supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant
dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and
occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint
tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal
heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the
property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead
either of those persons who are occupying the property, as
party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all
the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those
heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the
purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition
against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint
tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the
Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a
tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the
tenants on this count must fail.

 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3996 OF 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 OF 2014)
Suresh Kumar Kohli .
Versus
Rakesh Jain and Another .
Dated:APRIL 19, 2018.

R.K. Agrawal, J.

Print Page

Whether grandchildren will become the tenant of rented premises after the death of tenant if her children are alive?

To state in brief, the suit premises belongs to the Parsee Central Association Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and the mother of the plaintiff, Soli Bahadurji Batiwala was tenant in the suit premises 730 Hormuzd Building, Ground Floor, J. Vimadalal Street, Parsi Colony, Dadar (East), Mumbai 400 014. She was living in the house alongwith her son and grandchildren. The defendant no.1, who is the appellant before this Court, is the daughter of the plaintiff. Mother of the plaintiff died in 1980 leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir. Defendant no. 1 was married in the year 1998 and she went to live with her husband. Defendant no.2, who is the respondent no.2 before this Court, is the husband of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in his possession over and from entering upon or continue to stay/occupy the premises. He also took out notice of motion for interim relief of the same nature. The suit and the notice of motion were filed before the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. Defendant No.1 contested the matter contending that she was deemed tenant alongwith the plaintiff on death  of her grandmother and, therefore, the dispute is between two tenants and as such, the City Civil Court does not have jurisdiction and that jurisdiction will lie with the Small Causes Court. 

5. Undisputedly, the mother of the plaintiff was tenant in respect of suit premises and she was paying rent. She died in the year 1980 leaving behind her son, i.e., the plaintiff, his wife and children. After her death, the plaintiff was paying rent and rent receipts were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the landlord accepted the plaintiff as tenant in the premises. Defendant no.1 was shown to be aged 35 years in the year 2011 when the Revision Application was filed. It shows that she was just a small girl aged about four year when her grandmother died. There is no record to show that she in her own right was accepted to be tenant in respect of suit premises. She was living in the house as a daughter and family member of the plaintiff. She got married in the year 1998 and went to live with her husband. Admittedly, her marriage with the defendant no.2 is still subsisting. There is no dispute between the husband and wife. As soon as she was married and she left the house of the parents to live with her husband, she became member of the family of the husband and from that time, she was no more member of the family of her parents. After death of the parents, she may have certain rights in their property but during the life time of parents, she can not claim any right in the property of her parents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal From Order No. 966 of 2011 with Civil Revision Application No. 34 of 2011 With Civil Application No. 1286 of 2011

Decided On: 03.02.2012

 Kashmira Robert Lobo  Vs. Soli Bahadurji Batiwala 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.H. Bhatia, J.

Citation: 2012 (2) AIR BOM R 381,2012(2)ALLMR 855,2012(3) MHLJ 396

Print Page

What are rights of legal heirs of deceased tenant in tenanted premises?

It is obvious that the provisions of section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act provides for a right of succession different from the one under the ordinary law. It must, therefore, follow that the right of possession also will be of the person who is a tenant under section 5(11)(c). In the circumstances, even if the plaintiff may be entitled to tenancy rights as an heir of Soonabai under the ordinary law, she will have no right of possession, in any case right to immediate possession. No doubt, Bombay Rent Act is a statute which is supposed to be enacted as a temporary measure and so, it was not enacted to last till repealed but for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. It would, therefore appear that the mode of succession provided by the Rent Act is not a permanent mode and the right of the heirs or legal representatives, under the normal law is suspended and eclipsed till the preferential right conferred by section 5(11)(c) to tenancy continues. Hence, at the time of the filing of the suit and even at present, it cannot be said that the plaintiff as an heir and right to the tenancy of or to occupy block C. Her claim can only be to recognition as a tenant under section 5(11)(c) and to occupation alone or jointly with other under the provisions of Rent Act. It is held by this Court that only one person can be recognised as a tenant under section 5(11)(c). However, it is not decided that all other persons who were already staying in the premises will have to go out. I do not think that the intention of the legislature was to protect the possession of only one of the members of the tenant's family or to give a right of protected possession only to one of the heirs. This question will have to be considered when it arises.

Equivalent Citation : 1981 MhLJ876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 662 of 1977

Decided On: 24.07.1981

 C.J. Ghadiali and Ors.

Vs.

 Z.B. Wadiwalla

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.A. Mody, J.

Print Page

Whether notice of eviction served on one legal heir of deceased tenant is binding on other legal heirs of deceased tenant?

It is a well established principle of law that
upon death of tenant, the legal representatives become
joint   tenants   and   not   the   tenants   in   common.     The

tenancy   right   is   indivisible.     Therefore,   it   is   an
established principle of law that the notice of eviction
served on one of the joint tenants is binding on all the
joint tenants.   Then if by notice of determination of
tenancy,   issued   to   one   of   the   joint   tenants,   all   the
joint   tenants   would   become   tres­passers   in   case   the
suit   premises   are   not   vacated,     naturally   the   suit
against some of the joint tenants would also bind the
remaining joint tenants.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
 Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

VERSUS
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,

 CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 20th JULY, 2015
Citation;2015(6) MHLJ 309 Bom

Print Page