SHRI HARISH TANDON versus THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD, U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 05-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI HARISH TANDON 
v 
__, 
' 
THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD, 
~ 
U.P. AND ORS. 
B 
JANUARY 5, 1995 
[P.B. SAWANT, DR. AS. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
.,._ 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972-Sections 3 (g). 12(2), 12(4), 20(2)(e) and 25-Explanation 
c (i)-Deemed vacancy-Non-residential premises-Death of original 
tenant-Tenancy rights devolve on heirs of deceased tenant jointly-Admission 
of son-in-law of one of the heirs as a parlner in business carried out in tenanted 
premises-Tenant deemed to have ceased to occupy the building-{)eemed 
vacancy of premises-Deemed sub-letting-Eviction u/s 20(2)(e). 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes-Legal fiction-Deeming statute-Courl to 
,>( 
examine and ascenain the purpose and persons where fiction to be resorled 
to-Full effect to be giverr-Must be carried to its logical conclusion. 
A shop was let out to late S by the grandfather of the appellant. He 
I 
started a business in the premises. He died in 1941 leaving behind five 
·-
E 
sons. In family partition amongst the sons, the shop in dispute fell to the 
share of three sons. The other two sons ceased to have any interest in the 
shop. In 1976, a new partnership firm was constituted with the son-in-law 
of one of the sons for carrying a textile business in the suit premises. The 
appellant filed suit for eviction of the respondent tenants on the ground 
'>· 
F 
that there was a sub-letting of the premises by induction of the son-in-law 
as a partner in the business. 
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer held that there was deemed 
vacancy in respect of the said premises and he directed that the said 
G 
vacancy be notified. A Writ Application was filed on behalf of the tenants 
which was dismissed as not maintainabl~. The tenants filed a Special Leave 
Petition before this Court which was allowed and the High Court was 
... 
directed to rehear the Writ Petition on merits. The Writ. Petition was 
ultimately allowed by the High Court on the finding that after the death 
"' 
of the original tenant, his sons became tenants in common and not joint 
H tenant and for the contravention made by one of the sons of the original 
56 
"" 
I 
TANDON v. ADDL. DIST. MAGISTRATE 
57 
tenant by inducting his son-in-law as a partner of the firm, it shall not A 
result into deemed vacancy of the whole premises under the provision of 
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an Eviction) Act, 
1972. The High Court (}Dashed the orders passed by the Rent Controller 
declaring a vacancy u/s 12(2) r/ws 12(4) of the Act. 
The controversy between the parties was : 
(i) as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there 
shall be a deemed vacancy because of sub-sections (2) and ( 4) of Section 
12; 
B 
(ii) whether because of explanation (i) of Section 25, it amounts to C 
sub-letting within the meaning of Section 20(2)(e); 
(iii) even if it was held that because of the induction of the son-in-law 
as a partner in the firm which amounted to a sub-letting within the 
meaning of section 25 of the Act, whether the whole premises shall be D 
deemed to be vacant. 
According to the respondent tenants, before it could be held that the 
induction of the son-in-law amounted to sub-letting of the premises, a 
finding had to be recorded that the object of his in~uction as a partner 
was to actually and factually sub-let the premises to him. The respondents 
urged that the expression 'deemed' occurring in sub-sections (2) and (4) 
of section 12 as well as in explanation (i) of Section 25 should not be read 
as conclusive. It should be read as 'deemed until the contrary was proved'. 
They alleged t~at if such strict interpretation was given to sub-section (2) 
of Section 12, then similar interpretation should be given to Section 
12(1)(b) and Section 12(3) of the Act. It was also submitted that although 
the son-in-law might not be held to be a member of the family within the 
meaning of the definition given in Section 3(g) he shall be deemed to be a 
member of the family as the expression was generally understood, and by 
admitting a son-in-law or daughter-in-law as a partner, it shall not amount 
to sub-letting within the meaning of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1.1. After the death to the original tenant, subject to any 
provision to the contrary, tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the 
deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy are the sa

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