Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"5. Inheritability of tenancy.- (1) In the event of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely:-
(a) Spouse;
(b) Son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter both of them;
(c) Parents;
(d) Daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son:
Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family up to the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant:
Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let.
(2) If a person, being a successor mentioned in Sub-section (1), was ordinarily living in or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date of his death, or he or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let to which this Act applies, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of the premises shall become extinguished.
(i) Whether the brother-in-law of the daughter of the deceased sole respondent is entitled to come on record and contest the revision petition?
(ii) What Order?

8. The learned Counsel on both sides addressed their arguments on the revision petition as also the I.As.

9. After the coming into force of Section 5 of the Act, it becomes necessary for the legal representative of the respondent who wants to come on record on the death of the original tenant to establish that the right of inheritance of the tenancy enures to him and, therefore, he could be evicted from the petition premises only on the grounds specified in Section 27 or Section 28 to 31 of the present Act and not otherwise. If on interpretation of Section 5 this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent has not inherited tenancy, then there is no need for this Court to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned order. Therefore, let me now first consider whether the right of tenancy accrued to the present occupant of the premises. Section 5 of the Act provides a new substantive remedy to a landlord in case of death of a tenant. Section 5 prescribes the right of inheritance only to a specified class of persons and limits this inheritance to various periods depending upon certain factors which have been prescribed in the provision. This subsequent development in law is relevant in adjudging a claim for eviction made by the petitioner. In so adjudging the claim under Section 5, in circumstances such as the one obtaining in the present case, what is required of the Court is to examine whether the person who is staying over in the premises after the death of tenant is entitled to continue to remain in possession of the premises in his capacity as 'tenant' and whether the right of inheritance of tenancy accrues to him after the death of the tenant. Where such right is rendered inheritable, in law, his induction in the petition premises by the tenant prior to her death and his continuing in occupation as the representative of the tenant would not come to his aid in resisting a petition filed for eviction. Section 5 provides a new substantive remedy and the landlord even if he had suffered a negative finding in so far as his claim for self-occupation on the grounds hitherto available to him under the repealed Act can still seek relief under Section 5, if it enures to his benefit. Because there is no consideration of the material on record with reference to the altered law that governs the field now, this Court sitting in revision can adjudicate the matter in terms of the altered law as subsequent developments and altered circumstances are always at relevant all stages of the proceedings. Admittedly, the tenant died on 6.5.2003 during the pendency of the revision leaving behind her two daughters and one son, none of whom was residing with her in the petition premises. The brother-in-law of one of the daughters of the deceased tenant was residing with her in the petition premises. Under Section 5 of the Act the right of tenancy devolves on the spouse, son or daughter or both of them, parents and daughter-in-law being the widow of the predeceased son and not on any other person. The brother-in-law of one of the daughters of the tenant though ordinarily lived with the respondent-tenant, the right of tenancy does not devolve on him. It has come on record that none of the daughters or the son ever resided with the tenant in the petition premises. The contract of tenancy coming to a close on the death of the tenant, in the absence of any other person who could rightfully inherit the tenancy under Section 5, the petitioner-landlord would be entitled to an order of eviction without reference to or without the need to establish any other ground under which she may have sought for her eviction. This being the position that obtains in law the petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the petition premises and the Court is bound to pass an order for such recovery without going into the question whether or not the petitioner has established her requirement of the premises.