ASHOK CHINTAMAN JUKER AND ORS versus KISHORE PANDURANG MANTRI AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 09-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

}--
-
ASHOK CHINTAMAN JUKER AND ORS. 
A 
\'. 
KISHORE PANDURANG MANTRI AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRJJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
, B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
• Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947-Section 5(1 l)(C)-Tenant-Meaning 
of-Tenancy-Joint or separate-Original tenant having died, rent receipts C 
issued in the name of his elder son and after his death in the name of his 
widow-Eviction petition against the widow-Consent decree in favour of 
landlord-Execution-Appellant being second son of original tenant resisting 
on the ground of not being impleaded as a party in the suit-Tenability of-, 
Held, the decree under execution does not suffer from any illegality or D 
infirmity-Tenancy being on.e, all the members of the family of the original 
tenant residing with him at the time of his death succeeded to the tenancy 
together-In the, circumstances the widow who was impleaded as a tenant 
in the suit filed by landlord represented all the tenants and the decree passed: 
in the suit is binding on all the inembers of the family covered by the 
tenancy-Moreover, trial court and appellate court concurrently holding E 
that appellant has not been residing in the premises when his elder brother 
was alive-Held, appellant has no justification to resist execution of the 
decree for possession of the pre111ises by the landlord 
Original tenant in respect of the suit premises died leaving two sons, 
one K and appellant no. 1. After his death, rent receipts were issued in the F 
name of Kand thereafter upon K's death, in the name of K's widow, respondent 
no. 2. Subsequently, landlord filed a suit for eviction against respondent no. 
I 
2. The parties settled the dispute and the suit was disposed of in terms of 
the said settlement. A decree was drawn up incorporating the terms of the 
settlement. Thereafter, landlord filed a petition for execution of the decree G 
in which a warrant of possession was issued. 
Appellant no. I along with his wife and children, filed objection against 
execution of the decree. The case of the appellants was that appellant no. 1 
became a tenant of the suit premises on the death of his father. The landlord 
had filed a suit for eviction against respondent no. 2 without impleading him .H 
627 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A as a defendant. In the circumstances, consent decree obtained in the suit was 
not binding on him. 
The Executing Court rejected the objection filed by appellants, holding 
inter alia that the compromise decree was executable against them. Appeal 
filed by appellants in the Court of Small Causes was dismissed. Civil writ 
B petition filed by th~m in High Court was also dismissed by a Division Bench. 
Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that Section 5(11) of the 
Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 defined the term tenant to mean all the 
C members of the family of tenant; that appellant no. I who was then a minor. 
was undisputedly residing with his father, the original tenant along with his 
brother Kand the status continued till the date of the filing of the suit; that 
the landlord having not impleaded appellant no. 1 as a defendant in the suit 
could not get delivery of possession of the property in execution of the 
consent decree which was not binding on him. 
D 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the Trial Court and 
the Appellate Court concurrently held that appellant no. 1 had not been 
residing in the suit premises for a long time; that in fact he had shifted to-
another place and was residing in the premises owned by him; that when the 
landlord filed suit for eviction, appellant no. 1 was not a tenant in occupation 
E of the suit premises and as s.uch it was not necessary for the landlord to 
implead him as a defendant in the suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The decree under execution does not suffer from any illegality 
,,_ 
F or infirmity. Appellants have no justification on the facts as well as in law 
to resist execution of the decree for possession of the premises by the 
landlord. On the death of the original tenant the rent bills in respect of the 
premises in question were issued in the name of his elder son Kand on his 
death the rent bills were issued in the name of his window respondent no. 
G 2. It is not the case of appella.nt no. l that there was any division of the 
premises in question or that rent was being paid to the landlord separately 
by him. Indeed appellant

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