SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(All) 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Narain, J.
ISHWAR CHAND - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLY)/r.C.E.O., KANPUR NAGAR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 53191 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/08/2000

Advocates Appeared:
DINESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, Harish Chandra Srivastava

Inheritance of tenancy rights is subject to the conditions specified in Section 3(a) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Mere agreement to sell a property does not grant the right to continue in possession.

Headnote:

Inheritance - Tenancy Rights - Section 3(a) - Section 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order of vacancy passed by the Rent control and Eviction Officer, claiming inheritance of tenancy rights based on a Will and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner could not inherit the tenancy rights as he did not fulfill the conditions under Section 3(a) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also dismissed the claim based on an agreement to sell the property.

Issues: Inheritance of tenancy rights, interpretation of Section 3(a) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, validity of claim based on an agreement to sell the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not inherit the tenancy rights as he did not fulfill the conditions under Section 3(a) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also ruled that the agreement to sell the property did not grant the petitioner the right to continue in possession.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

SUDHIR NARAIN, J.


( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of vacancy dated 25. 11. 1999 passed by the Rent control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) ONE Ram Sahodar was tenant of a portion of premises No. 12/470, Gwaltoli. Kanpur Nagar. He died in the year 1998. Respondent No. 2 applied for allotment with the allegations that as prem Das, son of Ram Sahodar-the tenant, had purchased another portion of the same premises in the year 1986 and he is residing therein, the accommodation in question be treated as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Inspector. The Inspector submitted a report that Ishwar Chand, the petitioner, grandson of Ram Sahodar, was found in its possession. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the disputed accommodation be not treated as vacant.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed objection stating that his father, Prem Das, had separated from his father, ram Sahodar, in the year 1985 and had also purchased another portion of the same premises in the year 1986. The petitioner, as grandson of Ram Sahodar, is residing in the disputed accommodation. His grandfather, Ram Sahodar. also executed a Will in his favour on 3. 10. 1989 whereby he bequeathed all his rights and title in all his properties. It was further stated that as the landlords of the house, namely, Khem Chand and Gyan Chand had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed premises on 20. 2. 1987 and also handed over possession in pursuance of the agreement, his possession cannot be treated as unauthorised. The Rent Control and Eviction officer, considering the objection, declared it as vacant. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Ram Sahodar had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner on 20th February, 1987 and he is entitled to Inherit the tenancy rights on the basis of the Will. It is settled law that tenancy rights cannot be transferred by a Will in favour of any person vide Ratan Lal v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1979 ARC 251 ; devendra Kumar v. IIIrd Additional District Judge and others, 1980 ARC 519 and Abhinandan prasad Jain v. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1982 (1) ARC 708.

( 5 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of death of the grandfather of the petitioner, he was residing in the disputed premises with him and as such he inherited the tenancy rights. It is admitted to the petitioner that his father Prem Das is alive, who purchased another premises in the year 1986 and admittedly he had shifted there. He is not claiming that he has inherited the tenancy and is continuing in possession of the disputed premises. The petitioner cannot inherit the tenancy in preference to his father who is still alive. Section 3a defines the tenant as follows :

"3 (a) "lenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenants death (1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death ; (2) in the case of non-residential building, his heirs.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the death of the tenant, any of his heirs who normally resided with him at the time of his death is entitled to inherit the tenancy rights and where a person who is entitled to inherit the tenancy was not normally residing with the tenant at the time of his death, such other person who comes in the category of an heir under the law is entitled to Inherit the tenancy if he was residing with the tenant at the time of his death. The personal law will determine as to who is the person under the law to inherit the tenancy. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions mentioned under the Act

(a) firs








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top