1985 Supreme(Bom) 204

Bombay High Court
DHABE
Guruprasad - Appellant
Versus
Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur - Respondent
Decided On : 08/09/1985

A contractual tenancy is heritable, and the heirs of the original tenant would inherit the tenancy rights.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ORDER - C.P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLS. 2(5), 13(3)(III), 13(3)(VI) - TENANCY - HERITABILITY - SUBLETTING - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, son of the original tenant, challenged the order of the appellate court granting permission to the respondent landlord to terminate his tenancy under Cls.13(3)(iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. The petitioner claimed that he was not the tenant of the suit block and that he did not sublet it to the respondent 3. The respondent landlord contended that the original tenant was the petitioner's father, who had gifted the shop to the respondent 3, and that the petitioner had inherited the tenancy rights.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the original tenant was the petitioner's father, who had a contractual tenancy, and that the tenancy was heritable. The court further held that the petitioner's father had sublet the suit block to the respondent 3 without the written permission of the landlord, and that the petitioner was liable to be sued for permission to terminate his tenancy under Cl.13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order. The court also held that the respondent landlord was entitled to seek permission under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order to occupy the suit block after remodelling or reconstructing it, without asking permission separately under Cl. 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order.

Issues: 1. Whether the tenancy was heritable. 2. Whether the petitioner's father had sublet the suit block to the respondent 3. 3. Whether the respondent landlord was entitled to seek permission under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order to occupy the suit block after remodelling or reconstructing it.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenancy was heritable based on the following reasoning: - The definition of "tenant" in Cl.2(5) of the Rent Control Order does not exclude the heritability of contractual tenancies. - The Supreme Court has held in J.C. Chatterjee v. S.K. Tandon that if the original tenant died before the contractual tenancy was terminated, the heirs would inherit the tenancy. - The Supreme Court has also held in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar that the statutory tenant has a right and interest in the estate or the demised property and as such the rights of such statutory tenant would also be heritable. 2. The court held that the petitioner's father had sublet the suit block to the respondent 3 based on the following reasoning: - The gift-deed executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the respondent 3 transferred the business property to the respondent 3, including the right to continue the business in the rented premises. - The respondent 3 was to pay the rent of the suit block along with all the taxes which would be due. - The Transfer of Property Act provides that a lessee has a right to transfer his interest in the demised property either absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease, but he does not cease to be subject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease. 3. The court held that the respondent landlord was entitled to seek permission under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order to occupy the suit block after remodelling or reconstructing it based on the following reasoning: - The Supreme Court has held in Ramniklal v. Indradaman that when a permission is asked for on the ground of bona fide occupation, it is open to the landlord to occupy the suit premises after remodelling or reconstructing the same or after carrying out necessary repairs to the same, without asking permission separately under Cl. 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner and the respondent 3, upholding the order of the appellate court granting permission to the respondent landlord to terminate the petitioner's tenancy under Cls.13(3)(iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order.