Allahabad High Court
Baboo Lal vs Smt. Shiv Kumari And Anr. on 25 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ARC789, 2005(3)AWC2146
Author: Mukteshwar Prasad
Bench: Mukteshwar Prasad
JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the tenant has questioned the correctness of the order-dated 12.6.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2).
2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.
3. I have heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have perused the record carefully.
4. The following facts are admitted between the parties. Smt. Shiv Kumari, wife of Ramgarib, respondent No. 1, purchased the premises in question bearing House No. 108/65 Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur from Kailash Chandra Pathak. On the ground floor of the said premises one Mahabir Prasad was tenant. After death of Mahabir Prasad and his wife Smt. Cheta, his two sons Baboo Lal (the petitioner) and Basant Lal became tenants. Basant Lal expired leaving behind his widow Smt. Jai Laxmi and his two sons Ram Autar and Shyam Kumar. Ram Autar admittedly purchased a house in Usmanpur Colony Juhi Gaushala Kanpur.
5. The proceedings commenced on the basis of report dated 5.9.1998. Landlady (Smt. Shiv Kumari) and the present petitioner filed application/objection. They filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire material on record, learned Rent Control & Eviction Officer found that all sons, daughters', widow, etc. became joint tenants after death of original tenant and the tenancy rights devolved on all the heirs. He, therefore, placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court of India in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors., reported in 1995 (1) A.R.C., 220 declared vacancy in respect of two rooms and a Verandah of House No. 108/65 Gandhi Nagar Kanpur under Section 12 (1) (c) and 12 (3) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act').
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that original tenant was Mahabir Prasad and after his death his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant. She died in the year 1970. After her death, the rent receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner by the then landlord Balram Pathak. The respondent No. 1 wanted to enhance rent and pressurized him to do so. Since he failed to oblige her, the landlady wrongly intimated the vacancy to the authorities on the basis of wrong facts. He further submitted that the petitioner never removed his household effects from the premises in question and respondent No. 2 erred in declaring the vacancy. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Madan Gopal Maheshwari v. District Judge, Mathura and Ors., reported in 1999 (2) A.W.C., 1785.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment and has contended with vehemence that after death of Mahabir Prasad, his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant of the premises in question. After her death, her two sons Baboo Lal and Basant Lal became tenants. Basant Lal also died leaving behind his widow and his two sons Ram Autar and Shyam Kumar. Admittedly, Ram Autar has purchased a house in the name of his wife in Usmanpur Colony, Juhi, Gaushala Kanpur. He has relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors., 1995 (1) ARC, 220 and Anandi D. Jadhav (DEAD) BY LRS v. Nirmala Ramchandra Kore and Ors., (2000) 3 S.C.C., 703 : 2000 SCFBRC 245. According to him, the petitioner and his brother or nephews and brother's wife are not common tenants but under the law they inherited the tenancy from their father and they had occupied the disputed premises as joint tenants. Since one of the tenants has purchased a house in the same City, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer rightly declared vacancy as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act.
8. After having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the decisions relied upon by them, I find that contention of respondent's learned Counsel is well founded and has to be accepted. Admittedly, Baboo Lal and Basant Lal being sons of Smt. Cheta became joint tenants. Section 3 of the Act defines "landlord, tenant and family'. Clause (a) defines 'tenant', in relation to a building, .means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's '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. The word family has been defined in Clause (g) of Section 3 which runs as under:
"(g) "family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her-
(i) spouse,
(ii) male lineal descendants,
(iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced, or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building."
9. In Harish Tandon's case, the Apex Court has clearly held that after death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In this view of the matter, it is crystal clear that after death of Basant Lal, his widow and sons became joint tenants alongwith petitioner of the premises in question. Admittedly, Ram Autar purchased a house in Usmanpur Colony Juhi Gaushala Kanpur. It means, the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act was attracted which provides in clear word that in the case of residential building if a tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires a residential building in the same City, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The respondent No. 2 rightly placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court and declared the vacancy. Consequently, I hold that this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.