The court ruled that distant relatives cannot claim tenancy rights without evidence of continuous residence with the deceased tenant, emphasizing legislative intent to protect genuine family members.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Revision Applicant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 10 December 2019 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No.92/2014 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24 December 2013 passed by the Small Causes Court dismissing R.A.D. Suit No. 1958/2003. The Applicant had sought review of the judgment of the Appellate Bench by filing MARJI Application No.83/2020, which has been dismissed by order dated 17 October 2020, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application. The Revision Applicant-Plaintiff is thus aggrieved by dismissal of the suit filed by him seeking a declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises.

2. Brief factual narration of facts of the case would be necessary. Suit premises comprise of two residential units being Block Nos.4 and 5 on ground floor of the building named ‘Kapadia Building’ at 106, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 006 (suit premises). Dr. Ramanlal Chhaganlal Upadhyaya was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises and was residing therein with his wife-Shardaben. The couple did not have any children. Shardaben passed away on 23 August 2001. Plaintiff is the son of sister of Shardaben. According to the Plaintiff, he alongwith his wife-Neena Jain have been residing in the suit premises at all relevant times and particularly at the time of death of the tenant-Dr. R. C. Upadhyaya on 19 September 2003. After the tenant’s death on 19 September 2003, Plaintiff instituted R.A.D. Suit No.1958/2003 on 12 November 2003 in the Court of Small Causes Court, Mumbai seeking a declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises. To his suit, apart from impleading Defendant No.1-landlord, Plaintiff also impleaded Defendant Nos. 2 to 6, who are children of brothers of the deceased tenant-Dr. R.C. Upadhyaya. In the plaint, Plaintiff pleaded that Dr. Upadhyaya had appointed Mr. Arvind G. Kamdar as his Constituted Attorney to look after his financial affairs and after the death of the tenant, said Arvind Kamdar was instigating Defendant Nos.2 to 6 to put in a claim for tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. Defendant No.1-landlord appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 denied that Plaintiff is either member of the family of deceased-tenant or that he was residing with the deceased-tenant in the suit premises for substantial time before tenant’s death. It appears that Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 did not appear in the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. Based on pleadings filed by the parties, the Small Causes Court framed issues as to whether Plaintiff proved that he is the tenant of Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit premises and whether he is entitled for a decree of declaration. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. Additionally, Plaintiff also examined, Sitaram Balaji Rane-a newspaper supplier as PW-2, Suresh Kisan Shinde-neighbouring shopkeeper as PW-3 and Santhakumar Natwarlal Joshi, father-in-law of son of the Plaintiff as PW-4. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 who also filed additional Afodavit of Examination-in-chief. Defendant also examined Arvind Gunvantrai Kamdar, Constituted Attorney of the deceased-tenant as DW-2, Ajay Hiralal Parmar from Breach Candy Hospital as DW-3, Sunit Sanjay Bhatade of Breach Candy Hospital as DW-4, Anil Achyut Laghate as DW-5, Nivrutti Gopal Desai of Bhatia General Ofocer as DW-6, Phutermal Otarmal Jain of Jain Medical Centre as DW-7 and Ruchira S. Dalal, Treasurer of Bhartiya Stri Seva Sangh as DW-8.

3. After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment and decree dated 24 Decem