IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.S. Deshpande V.S. Kotwal, JJ.
Dr. Anant T. Sabnis... Appellant.
Versus
Vasant Pratap Pandit.. Respondent.
First Appeal No. 448 of 1978, decided on 4-7-79.
Advocates appeared :
M.M. Sakhardande, for appellant.
D.S. Parekh for M/s. Manghanmal Bhojraj Co., for respondent.
RENT CONTROL - TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS - BEQUEST - SECTION 15 OF THE BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - INTERPRETATION - WHETHER BEQUEST OF TENANCY RIGHTS AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15 - EFFECT ON VALIDITY OF WILL AND EXECUTOR'S RIGHT TO POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Tarabai, a tenant, died without leaving any issue. She executed a Will bequeathing her tenancy rights to her sister's son, Gopal, and appointed the plaintiff, her brother's son, as the Executor of the Will. The plaintiff obtained probate of the Will and called upon the defendant, Tarabai's sister's grandson, who was staying with Tarabai at the time of her death, to vacate the premises. The defendant refused, claiming that the bequest of tenancy rights amounted to a transfer prohibited under section 15 of the Rent Act, rendering the Will and the plaintiff's claim to be Executor ineffective. The plaintiff filed a suit for the defendant's eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the words "assign" and "transfer" in section 15 of the Rent Act include bequest, rendering the disposal of tenancy rights in any premises under a Will ineffective. The court found that the bequest of tenancy rights by Tarabai to Gopal was hit by the prohibition against transfers contained in section 15 of the Rent Act and was, therefore, ineffective, inoperative, and void. Consequently, no probate could have been granted in respect of such tenancy rights, and the plaintiff Executor could not claim any legal right whatsoever in respect of the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the words "assign" and "transfer" in section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 include bequest. 2. Whether the bequest of tenancy rights by a tenant under a Will is prohibited under section 15 of the Rent Act. 3. Whether the bequest of tenancy rights by Tarabai to Gopal was effective. 4. Whether the plaintiff Executor had any right to claim eviction of the defendant from the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The words "assign" and "transfer" in section 15 of the Rent Act are not defined and should be given their ordinary meaning. 2. In their ordinary meaning, the words "assign" and "transfer" include every kind of transfer of property from one person to another, including the passing of property from a testator to a legatee under a Will. 3. The bequest of tenancy rights by a tenant under a Will is a transfer of property and is, therefore, prohibited under section 15 of the Rent Act. 4. The bequest of tenancy rights by Tarabai to Gopal was ineffective and void as it was prohibited under section 15 of the Rent Act. 5. The plaintiff Executor, as the legal representative of Tarabai, could not claim any right or title with respect to the intestate tenancy rights and, therefore, could not claim possession of the premises from the defendant.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit for eviction of the defendant was dismissed. The court held that the bequest of tenancy rights by Tarabai to Gopal was ineffective and void, and the plaintiff Executor had no right to claim possession of the premises.
2. One Tarabai was the tenant of the premises in dispute. She died on September 21, 1963 without leaving any issue. She executed a Will on December 12, 1958 in respect of her properties including her tenancy rights, bequeathing the same to her sisters son---Gopal and appointing plaintiff, her brothers son an Executor of the said Will.
3. The plaintiff obtained a probate of the Will on 5th July, 1965. The defendant is legatees another sisters grand-son. He and his wife were staying with the deceased at the time of her death. Plaintiff called upon him to vacate. On defendants refusal the plaintiff instituted the present suit for his eviction in the City Civil Court, Bombay. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground amongst others that the bequest of tenancy rights amounts to "transfer" and is prohibited under section 15 of the Rent Act, and therefore, is ineffective and void and as such, plaintiff cannot claim to be Executor and claim defendants eviction.
4. At the end of the trial, the Court decreed the plaintiffs suit on the evidence led before him. He upheld the validity of the Will and the claim of the plaintiff to be its executor. He rejected the defendants case that he was residing with the deceased as the member of her family at the time of her death, and his case of having become the tenant of the premises on that ground and that plaintiffs right to possession was suspended, plaintiffs claim to arrears of rent was rejected on the finding that the defendant had paid rent to him. Bequest of the tenancy rights was found by him to be not a transfer, and as such, not invalid. The plea of the tenant about Executor having consented to his occupation and having thus divested himself of his interest as Executor in the tenancy rights, was also rejected. The defendant challenges the validity of this decree in this Appeal.
5. It is not in dispute that tenancy is governed by the Rent Act and continued to be contractual till the death of Tarabai. The only contention of Mr. Sakhardande, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant is that bequest by a tenant of the tenancy rights amounts to transfer within its meaning under section 15 of the Rent Act and is, therefore, prohibited thereunder. It is not disputed that bequest would become void and probate to that effect would become ineffective if section 15 is held to apply such a bequest. Only question, therefore, is whether the words assign and transfer in section 15 include bequest. The words assign and transfer in the context convey the same meaning.
6. Sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Rent Act reads as follows :---
"Section 15(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sublet the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein and after the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973, for any tenant to give on licence the whole or part of such premises" (Under-lining supplied).
The proviso and sub-section (2) of section 15 are not relevant. The section does, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, prohibit the tenant from (i) sub-letting the whole or any part of the premises let to him, or (ii) assigning or transferring in any other manner his interest therein. The plaintiff does not claim that Tarabai had any contractual authority to so sub-let, assign or transfer.
7. The words assign and transfer are not defined in the Rent Act. The dictionary meaning of the words shou
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.