SMT. RANI DEVI versus BHOLE NATH AND ORS

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 22-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-< 
SMT. RANI DEVI 
A 
v. 
BHOLE NATH AND ORS .. 
OCTOBER 22, 1991 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
B 
U.P. Urban Building (Registration of letting, rent and eviction) Act,, 
1972: 
Sections 3(a)(2) and 21-Eviction of tenant-Wliether married' C 
daughters of original tenants necessary parties to eviction proceedings--
Whether non-impleadment vitiates proceedings and disentitles landlady to 
maintain action for ejectment. · 
The appellant-landlady, filed a suit under s.21 of the U.P. Urban 
Building (Regulation of letting, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of D 
the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The prescribed 
authority and the Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that the appellant's 
requirement was bona fide and decreed the suit. But, the High Court set 
aside the order on the sole ground that the married daughters of the 
original tenant, who were the necessary parties, were not impleadP.d and, 
therefore, the non-joinder of the necessary parties disentitled the E 
appellant-landlady to have the ejectment of the tenants, namely, the sons 
and the widow of the deceased tenant. 
Allowing the appeal of the landlady, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Section 3(a)(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, F 
of letting, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 postulates that tenant in relation to 
a building means a person by whom rent is payable, and on the tenant's 
death, in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs. Therefore, as 
defined under s.3(a)(2) all heirs of the tenants are the tenants who 
succeeded intestate as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, 
the married daughters are tenants within the meaning of s. 3(a)(2), and G 
entitled to succeed to the tenant's lease-hold rights under the Act, 
including not merely to the liabilities to pay rent but also to continue the 
business until duly ejected as per the provisions of the Act. (537 8-C] 
1. 2 However, in the instant case, the original tenant died in. i965. H 
535 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated in 1974. Till then, one or the 
sons or the deceased tenant. namely, the first respondent was in 
occupation or the premises and did carry on business. The married 
daughters never participated, nor claimed interest in the business 
conducted by the first respondent and even before the death of the rather, 
they were married and they were living with their husbands elsewhere. The 
Rent Appellate Tribunal has round that by necessary implieation, the 
married daughters surrendered their tenancy rights inherited under the 
Ad, since after the demise or the original tenant, the daughters evinced no 
interest to assert their rights. In view of this, their non-impleadment as 
respondents does not vitiate the action for non-joinder or them as 
necessary parties nor maintainability of the proceedings for ejectment 
itself. (536 ff, 537 AB, D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSD.ICTION: Civil Appeal No. 129 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.1982 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13431 of 1981. 
B.D. Agarwal and Indeever Goodwill for the appellant. 
A.K. Srivastava· for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the landlady. She 
laid action under s.21 9f the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting, 
rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the tenant 
on the ground of bona fide requirement to start business by her son. The 
prescribed authority and the Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that the 
appellant required the premises bona fide to start the business. But the . 
High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order on the sole 
ground that the married daughters of the original tenant, Lalu were not 
impleaded who are the necessary parties and, therefore;the non-joinder of 
the necessary-parties disentitle the landlady to have the ejectment of the 
tenants namely the sons and the widow of the deceased tenant Latu. 
The only question· that arises in this case is whether the married 
daughters of the deceased tenant are necessary parties and that non-im-
pleading them would disentitle the landlady to maintain the action for 
ejectment. Admittedly, Lalu the original tenant died in 1965. Thereafter, 
H the proceedings were initiated in 1974: Till then, one of the sons of Latu, 
..__ 
,;__ 
t 
~ 
¥-
RANI DEVI v. BHOL

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