Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. In the case of Rajendra Kumar v. District Judge (1984 All LJ 99) (supra) and Ram Chandra Gupta v. 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad (1979 All Rent Cas 222) (supra) cited by the petitioner, it has been found that the tenant was in occupation of the accommodation on the relevant dates with the consent of the landlord and thus, the aforesaid two authorities do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

22. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that the tenancy was in the name of Joint Hindu Family of which Dr. T.N. Seth was Karta and when he left for America the tenancy devolve upon him and he is the tenant of the premises in his own right. It is contended that the concept of Joint Hindu Family is applicable under the provisions of the Act as well. In support of the contention learned counsel placed reliance on judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Jain v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, reported in 1987 (2) All Rent Cas 164, Ram Gopal Agarwal v. 4th Additional District Judge; Meerut, reported in 1986 (2) All Rent Cas 118 and Shri Sripal Jain v. Shri Raj Kumar Jain, reported in 1981 All Rent Cas436:(1981 All LJ 863).

24. It is apparent from the definition of family given in the Act that brother is not expressly included in the family and, therefore, by importing concept of Joint Hindu Family, he cannot be included in the family as defined under the Act. Besides that there may be presumption of Joint Hindu Family but there can be no presumption of the assets and liability of Joint Hindu Family. No evidence has been adduced showing that the tenancy was in favour of Joint Hindu Family of which Dr. T.N. Seth was 'Karta'. Even Dr. T.N. Seth did not come forward by filing affidavit claiming that the tenancy was in his name as a Karta of Joint Hindu Family. Admittedly, the petitioner and his brother including Dr. T.N. Seth have got ancestral house No. 48/128 in Mohalla Generalganj, Kanpur which was owned by their father Shri Raja Ram Seth, who was alive when the present accommodation was let out to Dr. T.N. Seth and, therefore, during life time of his father Dr. T.N. Seth cannot be Karta of family. The building in question was let out in the name of Dr. T.N. Seth and not in the name of his father and, therefore, the tenancy right did not devolve upon the petitioner. It is neither pleaded for evidence has been lead to the effect that nucleus of Joint Hindu Family was utilised for creation of tenancy and the rent was being paid from the account of Joint Hindu Family.

25. Therefore, in my view, in the absence of proof that the building was let out to Dr. T.N. Seth as Karta of Joint Hindu Family, the petitioner cannot claim right of tenancy as a member of Joint Hindu Family. He ought to have adduced evidence to prove that at the time building in dispute was taken on rent by Dr. T.N. Seth there existed Joint Hindu Family of which Dr. T.N. Seth was karta and the petitioner was Member.

26. In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the tenancy was in favour of Joint Hindu Family and, therefore, the tenancy devolve upon the petitioner.