DURGA PRASAD versus NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 07-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[20 I 7] I S.C.R. 745 
DURGA PRASAD 
v. 
NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.1305-06 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R BANUMATHI, JJ_] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
UP Urban Buildings (Rer;ulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) 
Act, 1972 - ss. J(g), 3(a), 2lf!)(a) - Eviction Petition - Father-in-
/aw took suit premises on rent and after his death, the son became 
tenant of the suit property - Upo;1 fi;s death, the wife became the 
tenant of the suit property - Upon fier death, brother of the c'eceased 
lady tenant, if included in the definition of 'heir' u/s. 3(a) - Held: 
Upon lady tenant's death, in terms of s. ) 5(2}(b), in the absence of 
any son or daughter of deceased wife, tenancy would devolve upon 
the heirs of h~r husband - Since appellant-brother of the deceased 
lady tenant does not fa// under the category of 'heir' of the husband, 
tenancy of the suit property would not devolve on him nor can he 
be called as an 'heir 'u/s. 3(a) -Appellant being brother of deceased 
lady tenant cannot be held to be the 'family' as the inclusive list 
given under the Act clearly omits ""brother and sister" - Thus, 
appellant is neither an 'heir' as visualized u!s.3(a) nor 'family 'within 
the meaning of s.3(g) - Merely because appellant was substituted 
in the place of deceased lady tenant, appellant cannot become a 
'heir' who normally resided with the tenant - Appellant is in 
unauthorized occupation of the suit premises and is liable to be 
evicted - Appellant directed to hand over the vacant possession of 
the suit premises to the respondent-landlord within the st'pulated 
period - Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 3(1)(j) -
Meaning. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
Term 'heir' -
,,. 
HELD: 1.1 The word 'heir' is not defined in the U.P. Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. 
'Heir' is a person who inherits or may inherit by law. Section 
745 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
746 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
3(1)(1) of the Hindu Succession Act defines 'heir' as "lteir" means 
any person, male or female, wlto is entitled lo succeed to tlte property 
of a11 i11testate under tltis Act. The word 'heir' has to be given the 
same meaning as would be applicable to the general law of 
succession. [Para 10) [752-B-C] 
1.2 In the instant case, the suit property was taken on rent 
by the father-in-law of deceased tenant 'L' and after his death, his 
son (husband of 'L') became tenant of the suit property. Upon his 
death, 'L' became the tenant of the suit property. Upon death of 
'L', in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, in 
the absence of any son or daughter of deceased 'L', the ter.ancy 
would devolve upon the heirs of her husband. Since the appellant-
brother of deceased lady tenant, does not fall under the cattgory 
of 'heir' of 'L' husband, the tenancy of the suit property would 
not devolve on him nor can he be called as an 'heir' nuder Section 
3(a) of the Act. The High Court pointed out that the deceased 
tenant-'L' being a Hindu female, the devolution of tenancy would 
be determined under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. 
' 
The appellant being brother of deceased tenant cannot be held 
to be the 'family' as the inclusive list given under the Act clearly 
omits "brother and sister'.' and the same cannot be read therein 
as the list has to be read and interpreted strictly. [Para 12, 13] 
(753-F-H; 754-B-C] 
1.3 Assuming, for the sake of arguments that the appellant 
is an heir of 'L', for devolution of tenancy, on the death of 'L', the 
app~llant has to be a 'tenant' within the meaning of Section 3(a). 
As per Section 3(a)(l), in the case of residential building, in the 
event of death of a tenant, for heirs to be treated as tenant, the 
_statute requires them to prove that they have been normally 
residing with the deceased tenant at the time of his/her death. 
The term used in the section is 'heir' which implies that not any 
of the family member residing with the tenant would succeed to 
the tenancy, but only the heirs of tenant normally residing with 
him/her. The words "normally residing with him" suggests that 
only those heirs. would inherit the tenancy rights of deceased 
tenant who resided with him ordinarily in normal course and not 
temporarily. The legislative intent appears to be that only those 
heirs would inherit tenancy who normally resided with the tenant 
and

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