Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Consequently it is held in para 14 of the judgment that the legislature had not intended to confer the statutory tenancy upon a testamentary heir. Even the reasoning for this ultimate conclusion is given in the said para thus:

"Otherwise the right of the landlord to recover possession will stand excluded even though the original party (the tenant) with whom the landlord had contracted is dead".

It is thereafter observed:

"Besides, a statutory tenancy is personal to the tenant".

The further analysis of the reasoning in para 15 of the judgment shows why a legatee under a Will of a tenant cannot claim as an heir. It is observed that if an "heir is to be interpreted to include a legatee even a stranger may have to be inducted as a tenant for there is no embargo upon a stranger being a legatee".

19. The oral evidence led by parties is essentially to show the relationship between the deceased statutory tenant and the Defendant No.1 as also the tenancy of Defendant No.2. No relationship of Defendant No.1 with the last statutory tenant of the Plaintiff is shown, admitted or established. Defendant No.1 is shown to be a stranger. The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act do not apply to such relationship. Defendant No.2 claims through Defendant No.1 as having been transferred the suit premises. His case similarly follows.