NANDKISHOR SAVALARAM MALU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus HANUMANMAL G. BIYANI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 7 S.C.R. 813 
NANDKISHOR SAVALARAM MALU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
A 
v. 
HANUMANMAL G. BIYANI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11868of2016) 
NOVEMBER29, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
B 
Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 - Eviction proceedings -
Property let out to a partnership firm - Eviction proceedings initiated 
C 
by the landlord-plaintiffs against employee-defendant no.l of the 
firm and partners of the firm-defendant nos.2 to 9 - Dismissal of 
suit against defendant no.] whereas decreed against firm and its 
partners-defendant nos.2 to 9 - In first appeal, suit decreed against 
all the defendants - In Revision, the High Court restored the order 
of the trial court - On appeal, held: If tenant is a partnership Firm 
D 
then such tenant would represent the interest of all the partners of 
the Firm and the employees working in the Firm - Such persons 
since claim through the Firm, they have no right of their own in the 
tenancy and in the demised property qua landlord -As such employee 
of the firm is not necessary party, to the eviction proceedings initiated 
E 
by the landlord - On facts, High Court erred in setting aside the 
order of the first appellate court which rightly reversed the order of 
the trial court by passing eviction decree against all the defendants 
- High Court overlooked the facts that the Firm was held to be the 
tenant whereas defendant no.J was Firm's employee; and that 
defendant no.l was held to be in possession of the suit house as 
F 
'trespasser' and not as 'tenant' - Thus, order of the High Court set 
aside and that of the first appellate court restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There was absolutely no legal basis for the High 
Court to reverse the well-reasoned order of the first appellate 
court which had rightly reversed the order of the trial court by 
passing decree for arrears of rent, eviction and mesne profits 
against all the defendants jointly and severally. The High Court, 
unfortunately, failed to apply the settled legal principles applicable 
to the instant case, in the light of following factual findings of fact 
813 
G 
H 
814 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
recorded by the two courts below that the Firm was held to be 
the tenant whereas defendant no. I was held to be Firm's employee; 
that the Firm failed to prove that they surrendered their possession 
to the appellants and cleared all arrears of rent; and that defendant 
no. I was held to be in possession of the suit house as 'trespasser' 
and not as 'tenant'. [Paras 21, 22) [819-B-D) 
1.2 Neither the Firm nor their partners and nor defendant 
no.1 had any legal right to remain in possession of the suit house. 
The reason being that the Firm and its partners-defendant Nos. 
2-9, being the tenant rightly suffered the decree for payment of 
arrears of rent and eviction and defendant no.1 was neither owner 
of the suit house nor a tenant inducted by the appellants and nor 
a licensee but was held to be an employee of the Firm and a rank 
trespasser in the suit house. The legal effect of eviction decree 
under the Rent Act was that the possession of the tenant-firm 
and persons claiming through such tenant became unauthorized. 
Since the tenant was a Firm, persons connected with the internal 
affairs of the Firm such as its partners and the employees working 
therein were also bound by the eviction decree since all snch 
persons were claiming through the tenant-Firm. [Para 23-24) 
[819-D-G) 
1.3 An employee of a tenant is never considered to be in actual 
possession of tenanted premises much less in possession in his legal 
right. Indeed, he is allowed to use the tenanted premises only with 
the permission of his employer by virtue of his contract of employment 
with his employer. An employee, therefore, cannot claim any legal 
right of his own to occupy or to remain in possession of the tenanted 
premises while in employment of his employer or even thereafter 
qua landlord for want of any privity of contract between him and 
the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. There was, 
therefore, no need for the appellant to file a separate suit to claim 
possession of the suit house against defendant no.1 under the 
general law as he was well within his legal right to execute the 
decree for eviction from the demised premises not only against 
the original tenant but also against all the persons who were 
claiming 

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