Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd vs Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors on 5 September, 1963
3. That the assignor Gopalkrishna was a statutory tenant is not in dispute, The only question is whether statutory tenant's is competent to so assign his tenancy rights in the premises to the plaintiff. Assignment of tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act can be effective and valid, only if it is covered by the proviso to Section 15(1) thereof, Mr. Ajit Shah, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, relied on this proviso before Kanade, J. It has, however, consistently been held by this Court that statutory tenant possesses only a right to remain in possession and he does not hold any transferable or heritable estate or interest in the premises so held by him as such statutory tenant. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji, . This case further holds that prohibition against transfer and assignment under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act, and relaxation thereof under the proviso, is applicable only to the contractual tenant, and not to the statutory tenant, whose tenancy is per se not transferable. Mr. Rane, the learned advocate for the defendant-petitioner, relied on this judgment before Kanade, J. in support of his contention that statutory tenant did not possess any transferable interest and Section 15(1) or the proviso on which reliance was placed was inapplicable to the tenancy of the statutory tenant.