9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oy, Sant Bux Roy, Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy. In the year 1943, there was a family partition amongst the sons of Sheobux Roy and the shop in dispute fell to the share of Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy. The other two sons ceased to have any interest or concern with the shop in question. Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy were carrying on their business in the name and style of M/s B.N. Rama Co. In the year 1976, Ganpat Roy and his son Ramesh Roy constituted a new partnership firm with one Swarup Kailash, son-in-law of Ganpat Roy under the name and style of M/s B.N. Rama Co. (Textiles) for carrying on the business in textile, in the premises in question. In the year 1979, the appellant filed suit for eviction of the respondent-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents ) on the ground that there was a sub-letting of the premises by induction of Swarup Kailash, the son-in-law of Ganpat Roy as a partner for carrying on the business in the shop in dispute. 3.In March 1981, one Ramesh Nath Kapur and Radhey Shyam filed an application for allotment of the said premises to them, on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy of the premises. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of residence in that building; Section 12 of the Act prescribes the conditions under which deemed vacancy shall occur. The relevant part thereof is as follows: 12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases.- (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if- (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. (2) Inthe case of non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. (3)In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson who is not a member of his family as a partner, the said tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building and by operation of the Explanation (i) of Section 25, it shall be deemed that such tenant has sub- let that building or part thereof, which shall be a ground for eviction of such tenant because of Section 20(2)(e) which specifically says that a suit for eviction of a tenant from building after determination of his tenancy may be instituted on the ground that the tenant has sub-let, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building . 8. It may be mentioned that before this Court, there was no dispute in respect of the facts stated above. It is an admitted position that the premises in question were let out to Sheobux Roy who died in the year 1941 leaving behind five sons. Later only three of his sons Ganpat Roy, Sampat Roy and Sheopat Roy carried on their business in the said premises. It is also admitted that in 19-8-1976, Ganpat Roy inducted his son-in-law, Swarup Kailash, as one of the partners in the firm M/s B.N. Rama Co. (Textiles) for carrying on the business in textiles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. If the said sub-section had provided that where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, it shall amount to sub-letting of the premises, then there was scope for investigation and examination as to whether, in the process of inducting such person as a partner in the business in fact there has been a sub-letting of the premises. But sub- section (2) says in clear and unambiguous words that once a person who is not a member of the family is admitted as a partner in the business by the tenant, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building . 12.On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the expression 'deemed' occurring in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 12 as well as in the Explanation (i) of Section 25 should not be read as conclusive. It should be read as deemed until the contrary is proved . Reference was made to the cases Gray v. Kerslake(1957) 2 Dom LR (2nd Series) 225, 239; Robert Batcheller Sons Ltd. v. Batcheller(1945) 1 Ch 169:(1945) 1 All ER 522: 114 LJ Ch 156 and Spencer v. Kennedy(1926) 1 Ch 125 : 1925 All ER Rep 135 : 95 LJ Ch 240 where it was observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be given full effect and the expression 'enactment' in the Act will cover the word 'Ordinance' occurring in the notification which had been issued. In that connection it was said: The corollary thus of declaring the provisions of Section 25, Bombay General Clauses Act, applicable to the repeal of the ordinance and of deeming that ordinance an enactment is that wherever the word ,ordinance' occurs in the notification, that word has to be read as an enactment. 14.In the case of Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar AIR 1961 SC 838 :(1962) 1 SCR 9 it was said: Were these regulations in force on the alleged date of contravention? Certainly, they were, in consequence of the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act. The fact that these regulations were deemed to be regulations made under the 1952 Act does not in any way affect the position that they were laws in force on the alleged date of contravention. The argument that as they were 'regulations' under the 1952 Act in consequence of a deeming provision, they were not laws in force on the alleged date of contravention is entirely misconceived. 15. In the case of J.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 12 and Explanation (i) to Section 25, no scope has been left for the courts to examine and consider the facts and circumstances of any particular case, as to what was the object of admitting a person who is not the member of tile family, as partner and as to whether, in fact, the premises or part thereof have been sub-let to such person. 18.It was then urged that if such strict interpretation is given to sub-section(2) of Section 12, then similar interpretation should be given to Section12(1)(b) and to Section 12(3) of the Act which prescribe other conditions under which the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. It was pointed out that sub-section (1)(b) of Section 12 says that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. According to the learned counsel for the respondents if the daughter-in-law or son-in-law of the landlord or tenant comes to reside in the building in occupation of such landlord or tenant, then it shall be deemed to have ceased to be in occupation of such landlor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y member of family', in relation to a tenant, shall not include a person who has neither been normally residing with nor is wholly dependent on such tenant. In view of the explanation any member of the family mentioned in subsection (3) shall not include a person who has neither been normally residing with nor is wholly dependent on such tenant. As such, if a son of the tenant who is not wholly dependent on such tenant acquires or gets any residential building in the same city or town, there is no question of the tenant deeming to have ceased to occupy the building under sub-section (3) of Section 12. 20. The Act with which we are concerned is a statute which purports to regulate the relationship between the landlord and the tenant and in many respects contains provisions for achieving that object which are different from the Transfer of Property Act. As such it was open to the framers of the Act to look to the interest of the tenant as well as the landlord and to prescribe conditions under which the tenant can continue to occupy a building and having contravened any of the conditions prescribed shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. 21. On the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. 22.The attention of the learned Judges constituting the Bench in the case of H. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paull (1989) 3 SCC 77 was not drawn to the view expressed in the case of Mohd. Azeem v. Distt. Judge9. There appears to be an apparent conflict between the two judgments. It was on that account that the present appeal was referred to a Bench of three Judges. According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant his heirs become tenants-in- common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20(2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. Clause (a) of Section 20(2) says that if the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand, then that shall be a ground on which the landlord can institute a suit for eviction. Take a case where the original tenant who was paying the rent dies leaving behind four sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establishes the said ground individually against all the heirs. We are of the view that if it is held that after the death of the original tenant, each of his heirs becomes independent tenant, then as a corollary it has also to be held that after the death of the original tenant, the otherwise single tenancy stands split up into several tenancies and the landlord can get possession of the building only if he establishes one or the other ground mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 against each of the heirs of original tenant. One of the well-settled rules of interpretation of statute is that it should be interpreted in a manner which does not lead to an absurd situation. 23.It appears to us, in the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul10 it was rightly said by this Court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy is the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-letting within the meaning of the Act. It was pointed out that Section 3 opens with the words: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires and as such the definition of the family should not be strictly construed as given in Section 3(g) and in the context of the present case a wider interpretation to the expression 'family' should be given so as to include even the sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi V. Milkhi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 134. As has already been pointed out that in the Act with which we are concerned, wherever the expression member of the family has been used, it is consistent with the definition of 'family' given in Section 3(g) and there is no scope for interpreting that expression in a different manner in connection with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Once the finding of the High Court that after the death of Sheobux Roy, his sons became tenants-in-common instead of joint tenants, is reversed for the reasons mentioned above, the result will be that it has to be held that because of the admission of Swarup Kailash, the son-in-law of Ganpa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
