Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that petitioner's father was a tenant of house No. 12/224, Gwal Toli, Kanpur Nagar. After the death of his father Sri Ram Dulare, the tenancy devolved upon his son Tek Chandra alongwith other family member.

3. The case of the petitioner before the court below admittedly was that all the members of the family upon whom the tenancy had devolved consented that Sri Tek Chandra son of late Ram Dularey, the tenant, would inherit tenancy and they have no concern with it.

12. The Court also considered the scope of Section 12 (3) and held that where one of the sons of the tenant, not wholly dependent upon him acquires any other residential building, the original tenant would not be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building in question.

13. In the instant case, admittedly the original tenant had died and the members of the family were living with him, they had consented that tenancy should devolve upon Sri Tek Chandra, his son, hence their rights of inherited tenancy stood waived. The petitioner was a minor at that time, the decision of his mother in so far as he is concerned, was binding upon him. The law now is settled that mother is also a natural guardian of the minor, therefore, she could take decision on his behalf and the petitioner was bound by the decision so taken by his mother for his benefit alongwith the other major members of the family. The petitioner cannot resile from this possession after attaining majority on the ground that at the relevant time he was a minor hence no decision in his interest or for his benefit could be taken by his mother.

14. Admittedly, being a minor he could not have entered into contract of rent or could have been allotted the tenement under the Act creating a relationship of landlord and tenant which was never created between him and the respondents. But being minor at the relevant time was bound by the decision of his mother as stated above.

15. All other members of the family have acquired their own residential houses and the mother has also expired. The tenancy not devolve upon the petitioner for the reason his mother did not remain a tenant once she relinquished her rights in favour of Sri Tek Chand who later on acquired his own house. Therefore, any relation-ship of tenant and landlord would not devolve beyond him to any of the other members of the family including the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. The court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the vacancy existed in the house in dispute,