A person who lives with a tenant as a member of their family at the time of the tenant's death is considered a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, even if they are not an heir of the deceased tenant.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 5(11)(C)(I) - INTERPRETATION - MEMBER OF TENANT'S FAMILY RESIDING WITH TENANT AT TIME OF DEATH - INCLUDES PERSON LIVING WITH TENANT AS PART OF FAMILY, EVEN IF NOT HEIR.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Baban Shankarrao Chavan, claimed tenancy rights in the suit premises under the Bombay Rent Act, contending that he was a member of the family of the original tenant, Madhav Vishram Padave, at the time of the latter's death. The respondent, the landlord, denied this claim, arguing that the appellant was not an heir of Padave and therefore not protected by the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the appellant had been residing with Padave as a member of his family at the time of his death and was therefore a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The lower appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the appellant had not been residing with Padave as a member of his family but had merely been staying in the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was a member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Whether the appellant's stay in the premises amounted to residence within the meaning of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had been residing with Padave as a member of his family at the time of his death, satisfying the requirements of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. The court rejected the distinction drawn by the lower appellate court between "stay" and "residence," holding that the appellant's stay in the premises amounted to residence within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the decree of dismissal passed by the trial court was restored.

JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This second appeal arises from the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the appellant with a contention that the appellant is nothing but a trespasser in the suit premises and that, hence, he is entitled to recover possession of the same from him.

The appellant's contention was that he was one of the tenants in respect of the suit premises within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act and, hence, was not label to eviction having regard to the provisions of the said Act.

It is unnecessary to refer to the meandering manner in which the litigation wended its way till this Court. It is enough here to state that initially the suit was decreed by the trial Court, but the decree was et aside in appeal and it was remanded to the trial Court and after the remand, after going through the evidence lead by both the parties, the learned Judge was persuaded to take the view that the present appellant was a member of the family of the original tenant at the time of the latter's death, was residing with him at the time of his death and, hence, was entitled to protection given to the tenants under the Act.

In Appeal, the learned Extra Asstt. Judge has deferred from the view taken by the trial Court and, hence, has allowed the appeal and has decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, this second appeal.

The few relevant facts are set out hereafter in a chronological order.

2. The suit premises are 83, Narayan Peth (Old Number), that is to say, 25, Narayan Peth, Pune. Admittedly, the premises consist of two rooms in the house called "Sanapwada." Admittedly, it belonged to one Sanap and in or about the year 1950 one Shri Padave took these premises on rent from said Shri Sanap. The present appellant is the son of Padave's widowed sister. The appellant's contention is the he lost his father sometimes in the year 1951 when he himself was a very young boy and, hence, he came to stay along with his mother with said Shri Padave and that he and his month lived with said Shri Padave as the members of his family. In the year 1968, this house Sanapwada was sold in the insolvency proceedings and was purchased by the present respondent.

On 7-1-1973 Padave died. The contention of the appellant is that both he himself as well as his mother had been residing with Shri Padave at the time of his death and in fact his funeral rites and the obsequies were performed by the appellant himself. The appellant's contention is that since he was a member of the Padave's family at the time of his death and since he was residing with said Shri Padave as such member of the family at the time of his death, he was tenant in respect of the suit premises within the meaning of the Rent Act.

On 19-11-1973, the respondent gave a notice to the appellant stating that he had no right to occupy the suit premises and that he was just a trespasser on the suit premises. By the notice the appellant was called upon to vacate the suit premises and to hand over possession of the same to the respondent. In his reply dated 29-11-1973 to the notice, the appellant stated that he had been residing in the suit premises for nearly 20 years as a member of Padave's family and that, therefore, he had acquired tenancy rights in respect of the premises by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Act. In view of this stand taken by the appellant, the instant suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the respondent on 17-16-1976 for recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant with the contention that the appellant had no right, title and interest in the premises in question, that his occupation was unlawful and that, hence, the respondent was entitled to possession of the suit premises on the strength of his title.

3. To complete the chronology of events, it may be useful stating here that after the filing of the suit, the Bombay Rent Act underwent an amendment, brought about by Maharashtra Act. No. 22 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document