KAILASBHAI SHUKARAM TIWARI versus JOSTNA LAXMIDAS PUJARA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 01-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAILASBHAI SHUKARAM TIWARI 
v. 
JOSTNA LAXMIDAS PUJARA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER l, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Ss. 
C 13(/)(e) and 13(/)(k): 
Filing of eviction petition on grounds of sub-letting and non-user of the 
premises-Allowed by trial Court-Affirmed by Appellate Court-Reversed 
by High Court-On appeal, held: Mere fact that a relative of tenant resided 
D with him would not make the relative a family member of the tenant in the 
context of Rent Control Legislation-The cousin of tenant's husband residing , 
in the premises in question cannot held to be her family member-Hence, 
High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the 
Courts below. 
E 
The appellant-landlord let out the premises in question to respondent 
No.I'."tenant She was residing in the premises along with her husband. Later, 
cousin of her husband, respondent No.2 also joined them and respondent No.I 
shifted to another premises but respondent No.2 continued to reside in the 
premises. Landlord filed an eviction petition on ground of sub-letting and non-
user of tJte tenanted premises under Section I3(I)(e) and I3(1)(k) of the 
F Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. Trial Court 
allowed the petition observing that respondent No.2 cannot be said to be a 
family member of the tenant and also he was not residing with her since 
commencement of the tenancy. Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the 
trial Court. The order was challenged by the respondents-tenant before the 
G High Court. High Court dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground that 
the landlord had failed to establish that respondent No.I was not residing in 
the demised premises and its possession was surrendered to respondent No.2. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
506 
KAILASBHAI SHUKARAM TIW ARI v. JOSTNA LAXMIDAS PUJARA 
507 
HELD: 1.1. The question as to whether a person is a mem her of the A 
·• .. family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the 
case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, 
if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant's family, some more 
evidence is necessary to. prove that they have always resided together as 
members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has 
chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make B 
him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control 
legislation. (512-G, H; 513-A) 
1.2. The Courts below were justified in holding, on the basis of the 
evidence on record, that the premises in question was let out to respondent c 
No.I which was occupied by her along with her husband. Subsequently, she 
acquired another premises and shifted therein. Before that, respondent No.2 
had come to reside with them and he continued to occupy the demised premises 
even after respondent No.I and her husband shifted to another accommodation. 
Respondent No.2 cannot be said to be a member of the family of respon~ent 
No.I, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the context of D 
rent control legislation. The High Court was not justified in setting aside the ' 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. (513-B-DI 
(This Court has observed that in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment 
the High Court has expressed its displeasure against the Joint Civil Judge, 
Kalyan the 3rd Additional District Judge, Thane, the trial Court and the First E 
Appellate Court respectively; the observations made by the Judge are not 
justified the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court should be informed 
accordingly so that the observations made in the Judgment of the High Court 
do not adversely affect the service career of the judicial officers concerned.) . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7161 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2001 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 306 of 1990. 
F 
S.K. Dholakia, Aseesh Dholak.ia, Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms. Anu G 
Mohla for the Appellant. 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and Gautam Godara for the Respo)ldents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment and 
order dated 29th August, 200 I, of the High Court of Judicature

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