Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia, the Supreme Court has settled the legal position on two fundamental aspects. First, the Court has held that the word "assignment" used in tenancy laws is not narrow in its meaning. It does not apply only to transfers made during the lifetime of the owner. It also covers testamentary transfers. A Will, though it takes effect after death, is still a voluntary act by which property is sought to pass from one person to another. Second, the Court has clarified that the restriction on assignment is not a technical or procedural formality. It is a substantive prohibition enacted to protect the very purpose of tenancy reform legislation.

15. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 23 and 24 makes this position explicit. The Court reiterated that where a statute prohibits assignment of tenancy or ownership rights, such rights cannot be passed on by Will to a stranger. This principle was not laid down for the first time in Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia. It traces back to the decision in Bhavarlal Labhchand Shah, which has been consistently followed for decades. The Supreme Court further made it clear that the word "assignment" cannot have one meaning in Sections 14 and 27 of the Act and a different meaning in Section 43. The statute must be read as a coherent whole.