The court determined that a municipal policy allows tenancy transfer based on occupancy and does not require unanimous consent from all legal heirs, reinstating the Appellant's right to the premises.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2002 passed in L.C. Suit No.2864 of 1986. The said suit is filed by the present Appellant. By the said impugned judgment and decree, the Appellant’s suit is dismissed.

2. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff, in short, is that she has been residing in the suit premises since her birth. Suit premises are owned by Respondent Municipal Corporation, of which tenancy originally stood in the name of her father Mr. Anthony Soans. After his death the suit premises were transferred in the name of Appellant’s mother Mrs. Karline Anthony Soans. Defendant No.2 is the only surviving brother of the Appellant, who is employed in U.A.E. for past many years. There was another brother by name Lesely, who expired many years back being unmarried. Defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 are married sisters of the Appellant who are residing with their respective husbands in their matrimonial homes. The Appellant got married with Mr. Wilson Xavier and during that time the Appellant’s mother was sick and all the other sisters were married and had left the suit premises for matrimonial homes. Nobody cared to look after the mother during her sickness and it was only the Appellant who was taking care of her mother. Ultimately the Appellant’s mother died on 08.09.1984 in hospital. All the furniture, fixtures and articles in the suit premises are purchased by the Appellant and belong to her. The telephone connection stands in the name of the Appellant. Electricity meter stands in the name of the Appellant for past many years. Rent of the suit premises has been paid by the Appellant.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that on 25.04.1986, the Appellant applied to Municipal Corporation for transferring the tenancy in her name being sole occupant. When the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 came to know about this, their attitude changed. The Appellant has also got her separate ration card from November, 1984. Even during the lifetime of the Appellant’s mother, the Respondents were harassing the Appellant to vacate the suit premises and incorporate their names in ration card. On 03.05.1986, husband of Defendant No.5 had assaulted the Appellant and abused her. The Appellant is a stage dancer by profession. The Appellant’s husband had left for Bangalore to attend wedding of his sister in 1986 and has not returned ever since. The Appellant is a lonely lady trying to protect her rightful possession and occupation. Therefore, it is necessary to restrain the Respondents from disturbing her possession or entering into the suit premises and it is necessary to direct the Municipal Corporation to transfer tenancy in her name.

4. Respondent – Municipal Corporation has filed written statement contending inter alia that the tenancy of the suit premises which is a shop cum residential premises stands in the name of Mrs. Karline Anthony Soans who has expired on 08.09.1984. It is admitted that the Appellant is present occupant who has applied for transfer of tenancy in her name. It is admitted that the Appellant is in use and occupation of the suit premises. It is further admitted that it is informed to the Appellant that her request for transfer of tenancy can be processed provided the Appellant produces consent letter in the form of affidavit of all other legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Mrs. Karline. Objections have been received from Advocate for Respondents for transfer of tenancy in the Appellant’s name. Since there is dispute amongst legal heirs of the deceased Mrs. Karline (person in whose name presently tenancy stands), it is left to the legal heirs to establish their claim through the Court by filing appropriate proceedings. It is