9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a tenant can bequeath tenancy rights under a will to a non-family member under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. Interpretation of the term "tenant" under Section 5(11) of the Act. 3. Applicability of restrictions on the transfer of tenancy rights under Section 15(1) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bequeathing Tenancy Rights to Non-Family Members: The primary issue was whether a tenant could bequeath their tenancy rights under a will to a non-family member, specifically under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The court noted that the tenant, Maniben, bequeathed her tenancy rights to the petitioner, who was not a family member involved in the business at the time of her death. The landlord sought possession, arguing the petitioner was not a tenant. The Small Causes Court initially sided with the petitioner, but the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda, reversed this decision, stating that tenancy rights could not be bequeathed to a non-family member. The High Court of Gujarat upheld this view, leading to the present special leave petition. 2. Interpretation of "Tenant" under Section 5(11): The court examined the definition of "tenant" under Section 5(11) of the Act, which includes various categories of persons who can inherit tenancy rights. Specifically, Section 5(11)(c)(ii) mentions that in the case of business premises, only family members carrying on business with the tenant at the time of death can inherit the tenancy. The court emphasized that the Act does not authorize the disposition of tenancy rights by will to individuals not mentioned in this section. The court highlighted that tenancy rights protected by the Act are heritable only to the extent specified in the Act, and this heritability does not extend to testamentary dispositions to non-family members. 3. Restrictions on Transfer of Tenancy Rights under Section 15(1): The court also considered Section 15(1) of the Act, which restricts tenants from subletting or transferring their interest in the premises without a contract to the contrary. The court referenced the Bombay High Court's interpretation that the prohibition on transferring tenancy rights includes testamentary dispositions, as bequests can thrust uncontemplated strangers onto landlords, contrary to the Act's protective intent. The court agreed with this interpretation, noting that allowing bequests to non-family members would undermine the Act's purpose and extend tenant protections beyond their intended scope. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner could not inherit the tenancy rights under the will as he did not meet the qualifications specified in Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Act. The court affirmed the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which held that tenancy rights in business premises could not be bequeathed to non-family members. The court emphasized that the statutory tenancy, which is personal to the tenant, cannot be extended to strangers through testamentary disposition. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed. Petition Dismissed.
|
