The court held that mere familial ties do not confer tenancy rights; actual residence with the tenant is required to avoid unlawful subletting claims.

JUDGMENT:-

A. THE CHALLENGE

1) Applicants have filed Civil Revision Application challenging the judgment and order dated 1 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowing Appeal No. 100 of 2017 filed by Plaintiffs-landlords and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9 October 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court by which R.A.E. Suit No.1303/1949 of 2009 was dismissed. The Appellate Bench has decreed the suit directing that tenancy of the Applicants/Defendants over the suit premises is terminated on the ground of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act , 1999. The Applicant/Defendants are directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs. The Appellate Bench has also directed conduct of enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from the date of the decree till the actual delivery of possession of the suit premises. B. FACTS

2) Plaintiffs/Respondents are owners and landlords of the building known as Daji Pandurang Bhavan, Plot No.472-A, Kings Circle, Mumbai-400 019. One Hari Singh Ujjagar Singh was the original tenant in respect of the suit premises bearing Block No.3 admeasuring 44.64 sq. mtrs in the said Daji Pandurang Bhavan building. The said Hari Singh Ujjagar Singh did not have any issues. Applicant No.1/Defendant No.1- Babarjit Singh was born on 5 August 1956 to the sister of Hari Singh. It is Applicants’ case that Defendant No.1 started residing in the suit premises alongwith Hari Singh and his wife since the year 1968 as their family member and that Defendant No.1 was treated as the adopted son of Hari Singh. Applicants claim that in the year 1978, the brother of the first Defendant-Mahabir Singh, alongwith his wife (Kuldeep Kaur) and son- Gurpreet Singh started residing in the suit premises alongwith Hari Singh’s family and the First Defendant. That Defendant No.4-Harpreet Singh was born to Defendant No.2 and Mahabir Singh in the suit premises in the year 1979. That both Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are disabled. After the death of Mahabir Singh, Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 continued residing in the suit premises as family members of tenant-Hari Singh.

3) On 22 January 1981, R.A.E. Suit No. 411 of 1981 was filed by the landlords against Hari Singh on the ground of illegal subletting in addition to some other grounds. It is the case of the Applicants that on 29 November 1983, Ration Card was issued in the name of Hari Singh, Babarjit Singh, Indrajit Singh (wife of Babarjit Singh), Kuldeep Kaur and her children, as well as son of Babarjit Singh. In January 1986, the original tenant-Hari Singh passed away. His widow also passed away in 1987. Applicants claim that they continued to reside in the suit premises. On account of Hari Singh’s death, R.A.E. Suit No. 411 of 1986 was dismissed as abated on 26 July 1986.

4) On 29 July 1987, R.A.E. Suit No. 1714/5439 of 1987 was filed by the landlords against the ‘heirs and legal representatives of Sardar Harisingh Ujjagar Singh’ as Defendant No.1 and Babarjit Singh was impleaded as Defendant No.2 therein. The ground of ejectment was illegal conversion of residential premises into non-residential ones as a Lodge by permitting several persons as lodgers. Defendant No.1-Babarjit Singh, who was Defendant No.2 in the said suit, filed Written Statement claiming that he was the adopted son of Hari Singh. It was also contended that he was the family member of Hari Singh. Plaintiff denied Babarjit’s relationship as adopted son of Hari Singh. On 5 September 2002, R.A.E. Suit No. 1714/5439 of 1987 was dismissed, inter-alia holding that Hari Singh had accepted Babarjit Singh as his adopted son and that Babarjit Singh was also a blood relative of Hari Singh, being son of Hari Singh’s sister and was residing in the suit premises as family member of Hari Singh. It was further held that person residing in the suit premises were closely related to Babarjit Singh and were not lod