GULSHERA KHANAM versus AFTAB AHMAD

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 27-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 393 
GULSHERA KHANAM 
v. 
AFTAB AHMAD 
(Civil Appeal No.9727of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.3(g) - Definition of word 'fa111ily"- Married 
daughter - Eviction for the bona fide need of 111arried daughter -
Entitle111ent for - Held: Any fe111ale having legal right of residence 
in the building is included in the definition of 'fa111ily" regardless 
of the fact whether she is married or not - Appellants husband 
died intestate, therefore, on his death his entire estate including the 
building in question devolved on the appellant (wife), his two sons 
and four daughters as per shares defined in Hanafi Law of 
Inheritance - Appellants married daughter received a share and 
became co-owner having a legal right of residence in the building -
Hence, appeIIant entitled to claim respondents eviction for the need 
of her 111arried daughter falling under the definition of 'family" -
High Courts finding that married daughter does not fall within the 
meaning of word "family" defined in s. 3(g) erroneous - Rent 
Control and Eviction - Bonafide need. 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.2/(l)(a) - Eviction - Bonafide need of 
landlord - Appellants need for additional space for expansion of 
clinic activities for her daughter in respect of the shop adjacent to 
her clinic - field: Expansion of appellants daughters clinic would 
be effective only with the use of two shops which are adjacent to 
each other - Landlord is the sole judge to decide as to how much 
space is needed to start/expand any activity - High Court not 
iustified in reversing the concurrent findings of the two courts below 
on appellants bonafide need. 
Constitution of India: Art.227 - Concurrent findings of courts 
below - High Courts power u/Art.227 in rent matters - Held: High 
Court could not have upset the concurrent findings in its writ 
;urisdiction which is more or less akin to revisional jurisdiction -
393 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Jurisdictional error committed by High Court by probing into factual 
issues and re-appreciating evidence like a first appellate court. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The definition of the word "family" as defined 
in Section 3(g) of the Act shows that it includes in relation to 
landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that 
building. (Paras 24, 25) (399-H; 400-D) 
1.2 The inclusive part of the definition enacted only for the 
benefit of "female" in relation to the landlord, adds one more 
category of person in addition to those specified in clauses (i) to 
(iii), namely, "any female having a legal right of residence in that 
building". (Para 26] (400-E) 
1.3 A fortiori, any female having a legal right of residence in 
the building, is also included in the definition of"family" in relation 
to landlord regardless of the fact whether she is married or not. 
The original owner died intestate and on his death his entire estate 
including the building in question devolved on the appellant (wife), 
his two sons and four daughters as per shares defined in Hanafi 
Law of Inheritance. Appellant's daughter received her share and 
became co-owner having a legal right of residence in the building. 
Being a co-owner, she got a legal right of residence in the building 
as provided under Section3(g) of the Act. In this way, she fulfilled 
the definition of "family" under Section 3(g) of the Act. (Paras 
27, 28, 29 and 30) (400-E-F; 401-A, F) 
Mulla- Principles of Mahomedan Law- 20th Edition, 
(Chapter VII) page 66-A- "Hanafi Lmv of ln/1eritance" 
- referred to. 
2 Appellant was thus entitled to claim eviction of the 
respondent for the need of her daughter for running her clinic as 
the daughter was having a legal right of residence in the building 
in question. (Para 31) [401-G) 
3.1 The question in relation to the bona fide need of the 
appellant's daughter to expand the activities of running the clinic 
was rightly held by the Prescribed Authority and the first appellate 
Court in appellant's favour by holding the appellant's need to be 
bona fide and genuine. There was no ground on which the High 
GULSHERA KHANAM v. AFTAB AHMAD 
Court could have upset the concurrent finding on this question 
in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 which is more or less 
akin t

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