http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT. RANI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHOLE NATH AND ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/10/1991

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 535  1992 SCC  (1)  61  JT 1991 (6)   178        1991 SCALE  (2)923

ACT: U.P. Urban Building (Registration of letting rent and  evic- tion) Act1972:     Sections  3(a)(2) and 21--Eviction  of  tenant---Whether married  daughters of original tenants necessary parties  to eviction  proceedings-Whether non-impleadment vitiates  pro- ceedings  and  disentitles landlady to maintain  action  for ejectment.

HEADNOTE:    The  appellant-landlady, filed a suit under s.21  of  the U.P.  Urban Building (Regulation of letting, rent and  evic- tion) Act, 1972 for eviction of 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 impleaded and,  therefore,  the non-joinder of the necessary parties disentitled the  appel- lant-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,    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. There- fore, as defined under s3(a)(2) all heirs of the tenants are the tenants who succeeded intestate as per the Hindu Succes- sion  Act,  1956. Consequently, the  married  daughters  are tenants  within the meaning of s. 3(a)(2), and  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 B-C]     1.2  However, in the instant case, the  original  tenant died in 1965. 536 Thereafter,  the  proceedings were initiated in  1974.  Till then,  one of the sons of the deceased tenant.  namely,  the first  respondent was in occupation of the premises and  did

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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  father,  they were married and they were living with their husbands  else- where. The Rent Appellate Tribunal has found that by  neces- sary  implication, the married daughters  surrendered  their tenancy  rights  inherited under the Act,  since  after  the demise  of  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 of them as necessary parties nor  maintain- ability of the proceedings for ejectment itself. [S36 H, 537 AB, D-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 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 of  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 Lalu.     The  only question that arises in this case  is  whether the  married daughters of the deceased tenant are  necessary parties  and that non-impleading them would  disentitle  the landlady  to maintain the action for ejectment.  Admittedly, Lalu  the original tenant died in 1%5. Thereafter, the  pro- ceedings were initiated in 1974. Till then, one of the  sons of Lalu, 537 namely, Bhole Nath was in occupation of the premises and did carry  on business as admitted by him in  affidavit  Exhibit SA-II "that the deponent is the tenant of a portion of house No. 55, Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad on payment of Rs. 40/- per month as rent including electric charges". It is also not in dispute  that the married daughters never participated,  nor claimed interest in the business conducted by Bhole Nath. It is  also an admitted fact that even before the death of  the father  they  were married and they are  living  with  their husbands elsewhere. Indisputably s.3 (a)(2) postulates  that "In  this  Act, unless the context  otherwise  requires  (a) tenant in relation to a building means a person by whom  its rent  is payable, and on the tenant’s death (2) 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. Certainly, therefore, they are tenants within the meaning  of s.3(a)(2). They are entitled to succeed  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

tenant’s  lease-hold  rights under the  Act,  including  not merely  to the liabilities to pay rent as contended  by  the appellant  but  also  to continue the  business  until  duly ejected  as per the provisions of the Act.  Whether  non-im- pleadment  of the married daughters would vitiate  maintain- ability  of the proceedings for ejectment. The  finding  re- corded  by  the Rent Appellate Tribunal  that  by  necessary implication, the married daughters surrendered their tenancy rights  inherited under the Act. After the demise  of  Lalu, the daughters evinced no interest to assert their rights, is well  justified. Once that is found to be so,  their  nonim- pleadment  as  respondents does not vitiate the  action  for non-joinder of them as necessary parties nor maintainability of  the  proceedings for ejectment itself.  The  High  Court committed grave errors of law in allowing the writ  petition and  dismissing the application for ejectment. The order  of the  High  Court  is set aside and that  of  the  Prescribed Authority  and the Tribunal are restored. It is not in  dis- pute  that the landlady offered a reasonable portion of  the premises to the respondent to an extent of 3-1/2’x 6’ in the Varanda but respondent had refused to accept that offer  but in  this Court the learned counsel for the  respondents  re- quested  to allow the tenant to retain the portion  offered. In  fairness,  Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel  for  the appellant, has not objected to it. Accordingly it is open to the  tenant to occupy the portion offered by  the  appellant and vacate the other portion which is required by the  peti- tioner  for starting the business of her son. The  appellant would  carve  out the portion in a suitable  and  convenient manner to run the business by the respondent. The appeal  is allowed  with  the above modifications, but in  the  circum- stances parties are directed to bear their own costs. N.P.V.                                                Appeal Allowed. 538