ANANDI D. JADHAV (DEAD) BY LRS . versus NIRMALA RAM CHANDRA KORE AND ORS .

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 05-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
I • 
• 
•' 
-
ANANDI D. JADHAV (DEAD) BYLRS . 
A 
V. 
NIRMALA RAM CHANDRA KORE AND ORS . 
APRIL, 5, 2000 
[S.S.M. QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
Section 13( 1 )(l)-~viction-Grounds-Alternate accommodation-Avail-
C 
ability of-Tenant was living in the suit premises with her sons fora long time-
Subsequently, her sons built a new house without any contribution from the 
tenant-Landlord filed suit for eviction of tenant on the ground that the tenant 
had acquired alternate accommodation-Held: Eviction can be sought only on 
the happening of any of the three alternatives viz., the tenant has ( i) built and 
D 
(ii) acquired vacant possession of or (iii) been allotted a suitable residence-
ln the circumstances of the case, none of the three alternatives is available to 
the Landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. 
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Section 20. 
Eviction of tenant---Ground~-Alternative accommodation-Availability 
of-Moral obligation of sons-To take care of their aged mother-Applicability 
of-Held: Such obli r;ation cannot be enlarged to provide her residence in the 
house constructed by her sons so as to give a right for the landlord to seek 
eviction o.f tenant on the g1Vund of availability of alternate accommodation. 
Wonk and Phrases : 
"Tenant "-Meaning of-In the context of S.5( 11) of the Bombay Rents, 
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
"Acquired vacant possession" -Meaning of-In the context of S.13( 1X1) 
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
Respondent No. 1 was a tenant of the suit premises for the last 30 
years. The sons of respondent No. 1 also lived with her till they built their 
E 
F 
G 
own house for which respondent No. 1 provided no consideration. 
H 
963 
'A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
The following question arose before this Court : 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
Whether on respondents 2 and 3, sons of the first respondent (ten-
ant), building a house the appellants-landlords can seek eviction <;tf the 
first respondent under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
On behalf of the appellants-landlords it was contended that after the 
construction of new house even though it was built by the first respond-
ent's son, an alternate accommodation was available to the first respond-
ent; and that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance 
Act, 1956 the first respondent had a right to be maintained by her sons 
and, therefore, she was entitled to live in their house and, therefore, a 
suitable alternative accommodation was available to her. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947 provides that when the tenant gets a right 
to reside in a house other than the demised premises on the happening of 
any one of the three alternatives mentioned therein, namely, either by 
building or by acquiring vacant possession of or by allotment of a house, 
. that the landlord can seek recovery of possession of the demised premises 
from the tenant. [967-E-F) 
GanpaJ Ram Shanna v. Gayatri Dev4 [1987) 3 SCC 576; B.R. Mehta v. 
Atma Devi, [1987) 4 SCC 183 and Strandingford v. Probert, (1949) 2 All ER 
861, referred to. 
2. The definition of 'tenant' under Section 5(11) of the Act is too 
exhaustive to include any member of the family residing with him. Such 
members of his family who were residing with the tenant at the time of his 
death, or in their absence any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be 
decided in default of agreement by the court, would become tenant only on 
his death. It is true that the first respondent and her sons, respondents 2 
and 3, were let into possession of the suit premises about 30 years before 
the institution of the suit but the first respondent alone was the tenant and 
respondents 2 and 3 were there as members of her family. They were, 
therefore, not tenants of the suit premises. Inasmuch as the first respond-
ent did not build any house and respondents 2 and 3 are not the tenants, 
the first of the three alternatives referred to above, is not available to the 
I 
) 
ANAND! D. JADHAV v. NIRMALA RAMCHANDRA KORE [QUADRI, J.] 
965 
appellants to seek eviction of the first respondent. [969-D-FJ 
3. The first respondent being aged mother undoubtedly has a right 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.