BHAVARLAL LABHCHAND SHAH versus KANAIYALAL NATHALAL INTAWALA

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-01-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1 
BHAVARLAL LABHCHAND SHAH 
". 
KANAIYALAL NATHALAL INTAWALA 
JANUARY 7, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 
1947 (Act 57 of 1947) section 5(11) (c) (ii) and 15(i) -
Tenant, meaning of - Whether a person occupying a non-residen-
tial premises as a tenant after the contractual per.iod is o'1er 
can bequeath his right to occupy the property as a tenant 
under a will in favour of a legatee who, is not a member of his 
family carrying on business, trade or storage with him in the 
said premises at the time of his death under the Bombay Rent 
Control Act. 
The respondent who is the landlord of a building 
situated at Baroda had leased it out in fa'1our of one Bai 
Maniben Dhirajlal Shah on a monthly rent of Rs. 22 for carry-
ing on business l.n the said shop premises. Before. her death 
she bequeathed her tenancy right ln the said shop by a will in 
fa'1our of the petitioner in the•special leave petition. After 
her death the will was probated. Bai Maniben was not a 
contractual tenant but her right to tenancy was only a right 
protected by the Bombay Rent control Act. 
The respondent instituted a suit in Rent Suit No. 47 of 
1975 on the file of the Small Causes Court at Baroda for 
recovering vacant possession of the said building contending 
that the petitioner was not a tenant and could not contiune 
any longer in it. By way of defence the petitioner set up the 
will and asserted that he had become a tenant thereunder and 
could not be evicted from the premises. The Small Causes Court 
agreeing with the petitioner that he had acquired the tenancy 
right under the will dismissed the suit• The Extra Assistant 
Judge, Baroda allowed the landlord's appeal holding that the 
tenancy right could not have been bequeathed under the will in 
favour of a third party like the petitioner who was not a 
member of the tenant's family doing business with the tenancy 
pefore her death. Consequently the petitioner was directed to 
deliver possession of the premises 
to the 
landlord. 
The 
petitioner preferred Civil Revision Application No. 
1500 of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1986] 1 S.C.R. 
1978 in the High Court of Gujarat against the said judgment of 
the Extra Assistant Judge. The Learned Single Judge of the 
High Court who first heard the application felt that Bai 
Maniben who was entitled to the protection of the Act even 
after the determination of the lease had an interest in the 
premises which could be bequeathed by her. in favour of any 
person of her choice under a will irrespective of the fact 
whether the legatee was a member of her family carrying on 
business, trade or storage in the said premises along with her 
at the time of her death. He however, referred the matter to a 
larger Bench, since substantial issues of law had arisen for 
consideration. Ultimately, the Full Bench by its judgment 
dated September 24, 1985 held that the petitioner could not 
acquire under the will any interest in the tenancy in question 
and that the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda did 
not call for any interference. Hence the petitioner's special 
leave petition. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
llELD: 1.1 On a true interpretation of the provision of 
the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 
1947 a bequest of the right to the tenancy in respect of 
premises referred to in section 5(ll)(c)(ii) of the Act. after 
the determination of the lease, which is protected by the Act 
cannot be made under a will in favour of a person not referred 
to in that sub-clause. (14 A-Bl 
There is no justification to saddle the landlord with 
the liability to treat a stranger who is not referred to in 
sub-clause (ii) of section 5(ll)(c) of the Act as a "tenant" 
on the basis of a bequest made under a will by the tenant. 
There can possibly be no justification either in law or in 
equity to extend the meaning of the expression "tenant" so as 
to include such strangers also. If such a right of a tenant 
were to be recognised, nothing prevents him from transferring 
the building to any body he likes who is totally unconnected 
with him or who is not dependent on him such as a temple, a 
church, a mosque, a hospital, a foreigner, a multinational 
company and any other person of any country. The Legislature 
could never have intended to confer such a right on him and 
exclude the right of a landlord to get back p

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