Independent Right Of Tenancy Cannot Be Inherited Merely By Being A Relative Of Original Tenant: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Justice GS Kulkarni heard the petition filed by one Vasant Joshi along with his family members as he suffered eviction from the said property after lower appellate Court under its judgment and order dated November 1, 1997 allowed the eviction suit filed by the landlords of the property.

Case Background

Respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs in the eviction suit-the landlords. The original tenant of the suit premises was one Raghunath, father of defendant no.1 Achyut Joshi, who is impleaded as respondent no.3 in this petition. On the death of Raghunath in the year 1971 the rent receipt came to be transferred in the name of Achyut although Raghunath's brother and his family members also occupied the suit premises. Thereafter, Achyut left the suit premises in the year 1979 as he acquired alternative premises at Pune. The said premises hence remained in occupation of defendant no. 2 -Vasant Joshi, Achyut's cousin brother along with his family members (the petitioners), who are now pursuing these proceedings.

The suit in question was filed in August 1982 against the defendants on three grounds namely that the tenant defendant no.1-Achyut, was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent, secondly that defendant no.1 had acquired a flat with all modern amenities at Pune and was residing in the the said premises along with his family, for past three years before institution of the suit, hence the defendants were absolutely not in need of the tenanted premises. Lastly that the plaintiffs bonafide and reasonably were in need of the premises.

The plaintiffs' children were to be kept for education at Pune also plaintiff no.1 was to retire from service soon and except the suit premises he had no other premises to reside at Pune. Plaintiff no.1 was transferred to Pune and he was in badly in need of premises and for want of premises, he was suffering a serious inconvenience.

On the above grounds, plaintiffs sent a notice dated May 10, 1982 addressed to Achyut, terminated the tenancy on the above grounds and demanded possession. After Achyut failed to comply with the notice, the eviction suit was filed.

Judgment

Advocate Anita Aggarwal appeared for the petitioners, Advocate Dhiraj Gole appeared for Achyut Joshi and Advocate Dhrupad Patil for respondent no.2.

Court examined the following two decisions in the present case-

In 1987, Judge at Small Causes Court, Pune concluded after examining all evidence in the case that plaintiffs had proved the bona fide need and requirement for the suit premises. However, allowed plaintiffs to take possession of two rooms out of the six in the petitioner's (defendant's) possession at the time.

In 1997, the District Judge heard plaintiff's appeal against the judgement of the trial judge granting possession to two rooms. After considering the findings which were returned by the trial Court and the judgment in appeal, District Judge reversed the findings as recorded by the trial Judge and decreed the suit granting possession of the entire property. Consequently, the defendant's appeal in respect of their eviction came to be dismissed.

Court observed-

"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.

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."

Thereafter, Court considered previous judgements of the High Court in similar cases, Kanti Bhattacharya & ors vs K.S.Parmeshwaran & anr, Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale vs. Avinash Krishnaji Binjewale & ors and Shamkant Tukaram Naik vs Dayanabai Shamsan Dighodkar.

The bench observed-

"Considering the above decisions, it is beyond a pale of doubt that in the facts of the present case the petitioner/ defendant no.2, merely because he was a family member, being the son of Sadashiv, brother of the deceased tenant-Raghunath, could not have claimed any independent right of tenancy and/or could claim to have inherited the tenancy rights."

Dismissing the petition, Court directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within a period of six months from the date of judgment.