KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA AND ORS. versus MRS. EILEEN K. PATRICIA DROZARIE

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 10-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN, M.K. MUKHERJEE

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA AND ORS. 
v. 
MRS. EILEEN K. PATRICIA D'ROZARIE 
NOVEMBER IO, 1994 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) 
Jlfest Bengal Premises Tenancy ;4.ct, 1956-Section 2 (h)-Contractual 
Tenant-All heirs of such a tenant, on his death, inherit the tenancy-Claim 
of daughter of deceased tenant to be 'tenant u!s 2 (h) -Allowed-Question 
as to whether the heir was ordinarily residing with such a tenant at the time 
of his death not relevant. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-Statement of Objects and 
Reasons-Use of 
One S was a tenant under the appellants in respect of a flat. Her 
0-
tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 
After her death, respondent, claiming to be her daughter had entered 
into the flat with her family and was residing therein since then. 
According to the appellants such claim of the respondent was false one 
as the tenant had all along lived in the flat alone and the respondent 
was never seen to visit her. Appellants filed the suit for recovery of the 
E 
flat on the declaration that the respondent was a rank trespasser and 
liable to be evicted therefrom. 
The respondent asserted that she was the daughter of the deceased 
tenant and had been living in the flat since the inception of the tenancy. 
Consequently, she claimed, that upon her mother's death she, as her 
F 
sole heir, became a tenant under the appellants. 
The trial Court while decreeing the suit held that the respondent 
was not the daughte.r of the deiceased and even if it was assumed that 
she was, she would not be a 'tenant' within the meaning of section 2 (h) 
of the Act as she was not ordinarily residing with her mother at the 
G 
time of her death. In appeal, the High Court disagreed with both the 
findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit. This appeal by special 
leave has been filed against the judgment of ihe High Court. 
The question for consideration was whether the respondent, as 
daughter of the deceas«)d tenant can claim herself to be 'tenant' u/s 2 
H 
(h) of the Act. 
440 
... 
KR. J. C. SINHA v. E. K. P. D'ROZARIE 
441 
. The appellants submitted that from the definition 'tenant' as A 
appearing in section 2 (h) of the Act, only those heirs of the tenant -
whether contractual or statutory- who were ordinarily residing with 
him at the time of his death would only succeed as a tenant and not all 
the heirs. According to the appellants the words' in the event of such 
person's death in section 2 (h) relate not only to persons whose tenancy 
subsists but also to those who are continuing in possession after the B 
termination of the tenancy. 
According to the respondent, the words 'such person' appearing in 
the phrase in the event of such person's death in section 2 (h) refer only 
to the person who is continuing in possession after the termination of 
his tenancy and do not and cannot refer also to a contractual tenant, C 
for he has an estate or interest in the subject matter of the tenancy and 
heritability being an . incidence of the tenancy it will devolve upon all 
the heirs and will not be limited to only those heirs who were residing 
with him at the time of his death. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. A contractual tenant has an estate or interest in the 
subject matter of the tenancy and heritability is an incidence of such 
tenancy. In the absence of any provision in the West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy Act to the contrary, all the heirs of such a tenant would E 
therefore, on his death, step in his shoes. (443-G) 
1.2. In the amended definition of 'tenant' in section 2 (h) of the Act, 
protection has been provided not only to the statutory tenant but also 
to such of his heirs as were ordinarily residing with him in the demised 
premises at the time of his death. The words 'in the event of such F 
person's death' in section 2 (h) refer only to the death of the person 
who was continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy 
and not also to the person, namely, the contractual tenant. (446-F-G) 
Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji, AIR (1965) SC 414; Relied on only 
to the extent it relates to interpretation of Section 2 (h) of: the West G 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 
2. It is undoubtedly true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons 
accompanying a legislative Bill cannot be used to ascertain the true 
meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of the legislation, but it 
can certainly be pressed into service for the 

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