GANESH TRIVEDI versus SUNDAR DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 11-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
GANESH TRIVEDI 
v. 
SUNDAR DEVI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
• 
UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972 : 
A 
B 
Ss. 3(a) and 12(J)(b)- 'Tenant '-Deemed vacancy '-Tenant in C 
residential premises-Brother and sole heir of tenant residing with him till 
his death and thereafter-Application by a stranger filed before Rent 
Controller for allotment of the premises declaring it to be deemed vacant 
since tenant of premises had expired-Brother of original tenant filing 
objection and on its rejection filing writ petition before High Court-Writ D 
petition allowed-Appeal by purchaser-landlord-Held, tenancy is a heritable 
right and the only limitation imposed by definition of 'tenant' given in the 
Act is that in case of residential building such of the heirs of the tenant as 
did not normally reside with him in the building at the time of his death 
would be excluded from inheriting tenancy rights-On death of original 
tenant tenancy rights devolved on his brother, he being the only heir-He E 
too became 'tenant' within the meaning of s.3(a)-Besides, the sale deed 
executed by former landlord contained recitals that former landlord 
acknowledged the brother of original tenant as tenant in the premises-
Therefore his status as tenant cannot be doubted or disputed by sub-sequent 
purchaser-landlord. 
p 
Words and Phrases : 
Word 'tenant' occurring in s.3(a) of UP. Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Meaning of 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. I 97-198 of G 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2000 & 29.8.2000 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 37152/98 and C.M.R.A. No. 68401 of2000. 
A.K. Srivastava, A.N. Sinha and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellant. H 
189 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] l S.C.R. 
A 
Giridhar G. Upadhyay, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tannweer Ahmed, A. Rab, 
B 
Vikas Bansal and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The controversy in this case centres around Section 12(l)(b) of U.P. 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, 
hereinafter 'the Act', for short. 
Ganesh Trivedi, the appellant has purchased the suit premises situated 
C in Deo Nagar, Kanpur city in the State of U.P. under registered deed of sale 
dated 18.12.1996 from Jagdamba Prasad Awasthi who was till then the owner-
landlord of the suit premises. The premises which are residential in nature 
were let out by Ja:gdamba Prasad to one Suraj Prasad for the purpose of 
residence. Deo Narain and Suraj Prasad were real brothers. Suraj Prasad died 
D some time in the year 1985. During his lifetime Deo Narain had come to stay 
with him and till his death was living in the suit premises along with his 
brother. Suraj Prasad died issueless survived by Deo Narain as the only here 
of the fonner. He remained in occupation of the suit premises after the death 
of his brother. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court 
Deo Narain expired and respondent nos. 1 to 3 being respectively his widow, 
E son and daughter have been brought on record by substitution in place of 
Deo Narain. These are undisputed facts. 
In April 1998, Vikas Shukla, the respondent no. 4 filed an application 
before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Kanpur for allotment of the 
suit premises declaring them to be 'deemed vacant' on the ground that the 
F tenant of the premises had expired. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the 
premises and submitted a report that the tenant who was living in the suit 
premises for last forty years, had expired and presently the premises were in 
possession of his brother. Deo Narain filed his objections in the proceedings. 
However, vide order dated 31.10.1998 the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer 
G ('RCEO', for short) declared the suit premises to be vacant. Deo Narain filed 
a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad putting in issue the order of 
RCEO. On 2.8.2000 the High Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside 
the order of RCEO. Though a review of the order of the High Court was 
sought for by the landlord but the same was rejected. 
H 
The purchaser-landlord has filed these appeals by special leave. 
' 
; 
GANESH TRIVEDI v. SUNDAR DEVI 
191 
Shri Ashok Shrivastava, the learned senior counsel for the appellant A 
has submitted that under the Act a brother is not a member of th

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