http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BHAVARLAL LABHCHAND SHAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KANAIYALAL NATHALAL INTAWALA

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/01/1986

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  600            1986 SCR  (1)   1  1986 SCC  (1) 571        1986 SCALE  (1)27

ACT:      Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act  57 of  1947) section  5(11) (c)  (ii)  and  15(i) Tenant, meaning  of -  Whether a  person  occupying  a  non- residential premises  as  a  tenant  after  the  contractual period is over can bequeath his right to occupy the property as a tenant under a will in favour of a legatee who is not a member of  his family carrying on business, trade or storage with him in the said premises at the time of his death under the Bombay Rent Control Act.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent  who  is  the  landlord  of  a  building situated at  Baroda had  leased it  out in favour of one Bai Maniben Dhirajlal  Shah on  a monthly  rent of  Rs.  22  for carrying on  business in  the said shop premises. Before her death she bequeathed her tenancy right in the said shop by a will in  favour of  the  petitioner  in  the  special  leave petition. After her death the will was probated. Bai Maniben was not  a contractual  tenant but  her right to tenancy was only a right protected by the Bombay Rent Control Act.      The respondent instituted a suit in Rent Suit No. 47 of 1975 on  the file  of the  Small Causes  Court at Baroda for recovering vacant possession of the said building contending that the  petitioner was not a tenant and could not continue any longer  in it.  By way  of defence the petitioner set up the will and asserted that he had become a tenant thereunder and could not be evicted from the premises. The Small Causes Court agreeing  with the petitioner that he had acquired the tenancy right  under the  will dismissed the suit. The Extra Assistant  Judge,   Baroda  allowed  the  landlord’s  appeal holding  that   the  tenancy   right  could  not  have  been bequeathed under  the will  in favour  of a third party like the petitioner  who was  not a member of the tenant’s family doing  business   with  the   tenancy  before   her   death. Consequently  the   petitioner  was   directed  to   deliver possession of  the premises  to the landlord. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision Application No. 1500 of 2 1978 in  the High Court of Gujarat against the said judgment of the  Extra Assistant  Judge. The  Learned Single Judge of the High Court who first heard the application felt that Bai

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Maniben who  was entitled  to the protection of the Act even after the  determination of the lease had an interest in the premises which  could be  bequeathed by her in favour of any person of  her choice  under a will irrespective of the fact whether the  legatee was  a member of her family carrying on business, trade  or storage  in the said premises along with her at  the time  of her  death. He  however,  referred  the matter to  a larger  Bench, since  substantial issues of law had arisen  for consideration. Ultimately, the Full Bench by its  judgment   dated  September  24,  1985  held  that  the petitioner could  not acquire under the will any interest in the tenancy  in question  and that the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge,  Baroda did  not call for any interference. Hence the petitioner’s special leave petition.      Dismissing the petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.1  On a true interpretation of the provision of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 a  bequest of  the right  to the  tenancy in respect of premises referred  to in  section 5(11)(c)(ii)  of  the  Act after the  determination of the lease, which is protected by the Act  cannot be  made under  a will in favour of a person not referred to in that sub-clause. [14 A-B]      There is  no justification  to saddle the landlord with the liability  to treat a stranger who is not referred to in sub-clause (ii) of section 5(11)(c) of the Act as a "tenant" on the  basis of  a bequest made under a will by the tenant. There can  possibly be  no justification either in law or in equity to  extend the  meaning of the expression "tenant" so as to  include such  strangers also.  If such  a right  of a tenant were  to be  recognised, nothing  prevents  him  from transferring the  building to  any  body  he  likes  who  is totally unconnected  with him or who is not dependent on him such as  a  temple,  a  church,  a  mosque,  a  hospital,  a foreigner, a  multinational company  and any other person of any country.  The Legislature  could never  have intended to confer such  a right  on him  and exclude  the  right  of  a landlord to  get back  possession of  his building  for ever even after  the death of the tenant with whom he had entered into contract initially. [10 C-E; 14 B-C]      1.2 Both sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of sub- section (11) of section 5 of the Act which deal with the 3 devolution of  the right to tenancy on the death of a tenant in respect  of residential  premises and  premises  let  for business trade  or storage  respectively do not provide that the  said   right  of   tenancy  can  devolve  by  means  of testamentary disposition on a legatee who is not referred to in the  respective sub-clauses.  It has,  therefore,  to  be understood that  even the  extended  meaning  given  to  the expression "tenant"  by sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Act does  not authorise  the disposition of the right to the tenancy of the premises governed by the Act under a will. [6 E-G]      1.3 Ordinarily  it is  only an  interest  that  can  be inherited that  can be bequeathed. But the heritability of a tenancy after  the determination  of  the  lease,  which  is protected  by   the  Act   is  restricted  in  the  case  of residential premises  only to  the members  of the  tenant’s family mentioned  in sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 5(11) of  the Act  and in  the  case  of  premises  let  for business trade  or usage  to members belonging to the family of the  tenant carrying  on business,  trade or storage with the tenant  in the  premises at the time of the death of the tenant as  may continue  after his  death to  carry  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

business, trade  or storage, as the case may be, in the said premises and  as may  be decided in default of the agreement by the Court as provided in sub-clause (ii) thereof. [6 G-H; 7 A-B]      Gian Devi  v. Jeevan  Kumar, A.I.R.  1985 S.C. 796; and Jaspal Singh v. The Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr & Ors., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1880 referred to.      Dr. Anant  Triamback Sabnis  v. Vasant  Pratap  Pandit, A.I.R. 1980 Bombay 69 approved.      Bhavarlal  Labhchand   Shah  v.   Kanaiyalal   Nathalal Intawala, C.R.A. 1500/1978 dated 24.9.85 affirmed.      2. It is not open to the Court by judicial construction to extend  the right  to inherit the right to the tenancy of the premises  let out  for business,  trade  or  storage  to persons who are not members of the tenant’s family who claim under testamentary  succession,  when  the  Legislature  has restricted such  a right  only to  any member  of a tenant’s family carrying  on business,  trade  or  storage  with  the tenant at the time of his death. [10 F-G]      (The Court,  however, left  open the  wider proposition that a  statutory tenancy  which is  personal to  the tenant cannot be  bequeathed at  all under  a  will  in  favour  of anybody). 4

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14036 of 1985.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  24.9.1985  of  the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1500 of 1978.      S.H. Sheth and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  The question  for  consideration  in this special  leave is  whether a  person occupying  a  non- residential premises  as  a  tenant  after  the  contractual period is over can bequeath his right to occupy the property as a tenant under a will in favour of a legatee who is not a member of  his family carrying on business, trade or storage with him in the said premises at the time of his death under the provisions  of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control  Act,  1947  (Act  57  of  1947)  (hereinafter referred to  as ’the  act’) as  in force  in  the  State  of Gujarat.      The respondent  who  is  the  landlord  of  a  building situated at  Baroda had  leased it  out in favour of one Bai Maniben Dhirajlal  Shah on a monthly rent of Rs. 22. Maniben was carrying  on business  in the  said  shop  premises  and before her  death she  bequeathed her  tenancy right  in the said shop  by a  will in favour of the petitioner. After her death the will was probated. The Petitioner who had got into possession of  the premises in question claimed that Maniben had a tenancy right under the Act which was heritable and as such she  could validly  bequeath the  tenancy right  in his favour. It  was however  admitted by the petitioner that she was not  a contractual  tenant but  her right to tenancy was only a right protected by the Act. The landlord instituted a suit in  Rent Suit  No. 47  of 1975 on the file of the Small Causes Court  at Baroda  for recovering vacant possession of the said  building contending  that the petitioner was not a tenant and  could not  continue any  longer in it. By way of defence the petitioner set up the will referred to above and asserted that  he had  become a  tenant thereunder and could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

not be  evicted from  the premises.  The Small  Causes Court agreeing with  the  petitioner  that  he  had  acquired  the tenancy  right  under  the  will  dismissed  the  suit.  The landlord filed  an appeal  before the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda against  the decree  dismissing the  suit. The  Extra Assistant Judge,  Baroda allowed the appeal holding that the tenancy right could not have been bequeathed 5 under  the  will  in  favour  of  a  third  party  like  the petitioner who was not a member of the tenant’s family doing business with  the tenant  before her  death and he directed the petitioner  to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord. Aggrieved  by the  judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda  the  petitioner  filed  a  revision  petition before  the   High  Court   of  Gujarat  in  Civil  Revision Application No.  1500 of  1978. The  learned Single Judge of the  High   Court  who   first  heard   the  Civil  Revision Application felt  that  Maniben  who  was  entitled  to  the protection of  the Act  even after  the determination of the lease had  an  interest  in  the  premises  which  could  be bequeathed by  her in  favour of  any person  of her  choice under a  will irrespective  of the  fact whether the legatee was a  member of  her family  carrying on business, trade or storage in  the said  premises along with her at the time of her death.  He however referred the matter to a larger Bench since   substantial   issues   of   law   had   arisen   for consideration. Ultimately the case was heard by a Full Bench of the  Gujarat High  Court. The  Full Bench by its judgment dated September  24, 1985 held that the petitioner could not acquire under  the will  any  interest  in  the  tenancy  in question and that the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda did  not call  for any interference. Aggrieved by the judgment of  the Full Bench of the High Court the petitioner has filed  this special  leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.      After we  heard the  learned counsel for the petitioner we came to the conclusion that there was no informity in the judgment of  the High  Court but we were however of the view that we  should set  out  our  reasons  in  support  of  the decision having  regard to  the contentions very strenuously urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner.      The expression ’tenant’ has been defined in sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Act thus :-      "5(11). ’tenant’  means any  person by whom or on whose      account rent is payable for any premises and includes-           (a) Such  sub-tenants and  other persons  as  have           derived  title   under   a   tenant   before   the           commencement  of   the  Bombay  Rents,  Hotel  and           Lodging   House    Rates    Control    (Amendment)           Ordinance,1959 (Bom. Ord. No.III of 1959).           (aa) any  person to  whom interest in premises has           been transferred  under the proviso to sub-section           (1) of section 15 ; 6           (b) any  person remaining, after the determination           of the  lease, in  possession, with or without the           assent of  the landlord, of the premises leased to           such person  or his  predecessor who  has  derived           title before  commencement of  the  Bombay  Rents,           Hotel and  Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment)           Ordinance (Bom. Ord. No. III of 1959).           (c)(i) in  relation to premises let for residence,           any member  of the  tenant’s family  residing with           the tenant  at the  time of or within three months           immediately preceding  the death  of the tenant as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

         may be  decided in  default of  agreement  by  the           Court, and  (ii) in  relation to  premises let for           business, trade  or  storage  any  member  of  the           tenant’s family  carrying on  business,  trade  or           storage with  the tenant  in the  said premises at           the time  of  the  death  of  the  tenant  as  may           continue,  after   his  death,  to  carry  on  the           business, trade  or storage, as the case may be in           the said premises and as may be decided in default           of agreement by the Court."      We are  concerned in this case with a building which is let for  business  and  insofar  as  business  premises  are concerned it  provided  in  section  5(11)(c)(ii)  that  any member of the tenant’s family carrying on business, trade or storage with  the tenant  in the premises at the time of the death of  the tenant  as may  continue, after  his death, to carry on  the business  trade or storage, as the case may be in the  said premises  and as  may be  decided in default of agreement by  the Court  shall be treated as a tenant. It is significant that both sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of sub-section  (11) of section 5 of the Act which deal with the devolution  of the  right to  tenancy on  the death of a tenant in  respect of  residential premises and premises let for business,  trade or  storage respectively do not provide that the  said right  of tenancy  can devolve  by  means  of testamentary disposition on a legatee who is not referred to in the  respective sub-clauses.  It has,  therefore,  to  be understood that  even the  extended  meaning  given  to  the expression ’tenant  by sub-section  (11) of section 5 of the Act does  not authorise  the disposition of the right to the tenancy of  the premises  governed by  the Act under a will. Ordinarily it is only an interest that can be inherited that can be  bequeathed. But  the heritability of a tenancy after the determination of the lease, which is protected 7 by the Act is restricted in the case of residential premises only to the members of the tenant’s family mentioned in sub- clause (i)  of clause (c) of section 5(11) of the Act and in the case  of premises  let for  business, trade  or usage to members belonging  to the  family of  the tenant carrying on business, trade  or storage  with the tenant as may continue after his  death to  carry on the business, trade or storage as the  case may  be in  the said  premises and  as  may  be decided in default of the agreement by the Court as provided in sub-clause  (ii) thereof.  When the  statute has  imposed such a  restriction, it  is not  possible to  say  that  the tenant can bequeath the right to such tenancy in the case of premises let  for business,  trade or storage in favour of a person not  possessing  the  qualification  referred  to  in section 5(11) (c) (ii) of the Act. The petitioner admittedly is not  a person  possessing the  said qualification.  It is appropriate to refer here to the following observations made by A.N.  Sen, J.  who has  written the  main judgment of the case in  Gian Devi  v. Jeevan  Kumar A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 796 at page 810 :-           "In the  absence of  the  provision  contained  in           subsection 2(1)  (iii), the  heritable interest of           the heirs of the statutory tenant would devolve on           all the  heirs of the ’so called statutory tenant’           on his death and the heirs of such tenant would in           law step into his position. This sub-section (iii)           of s.  2(1) seeks to restrict this right in so far           as the  residential premises  are  concerned.  The           heritability  of   the  statutory   tenancy  which           otherwise flows from the Act is restricted in case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

         of residential  premises only  to the heirs herein           are entitled  to remain in possession and to enjoy           the protection  under the Act in the manner and to           the extent  indicated in  section 2(1)  (iii). The           Legislature  which  under  the  Rent  Act  affords           protection  against   eviction  to  tenants  whose           tenancies have been terminated and who continue to           remain in  possession and who are generally termed           as statutory  tenants, is  perfectly competent  to           lay down  the manner  and extent of the protection           and the rights and obligations of such tenants and           their heirs.  S. 2(1)  (iii) of  the Act  does not           create any  additional or  special right in favour           of the  heirs of  the ’so called statutory tenant’           on his  death, but  seems to restrict the right of           the heirs of such tenant in respect of residential           premises. As 8           the status and rights of a contractual tenant even           after determination of his tenancy when the tenant           is at times described as the statutory tenant, are           fully protected  by the  Act and the heirs of such           tenants  become   entitled  by   virtue   of   the           provisions of  the Act  to inherit  the status and           position of the statutory tenant on his death, the           Legislature  which  has  created  this  right  has           thought it fit in the case of residential premises           to limit the rights of the heirs in the manner and           to the  extent  provided  in  s.  2(1)  (iii).  It           appears that  the Legislature  has not  thought it           fit to  put any  such restrictions  with regard to           tenants in  respect of commercial premises in this           Act." (underlining by us)      In the  above decision  this Court  was considering the provisions  of   the  Delhi   Rent  Control   Act  in  which restriction had  been placed  on  the  heritability  of  the statutory tenancy  in the  case of residential premises only to the  heirs mentioned  in section  2(1) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control  Act and  no such  restriction had  been placed with regard to the right of tenancy in respect of commercial premises. Proceeding  further A.N.  Sen, J.  observed in the above decision at page 813 thus :-           "In the  Delhi Act, the Legislature has thought it           fit to  make provisions  regulating the  right  to           inherit  the   tenancy  rights   in   respect   of           residential premises.  The relevant provisions are           contained in s. 2(1) (iii) of the Act. With regard           to the commercial premises, the Legislature in the           Act under  consideration has thought it fit not to           make any such provision. It may be noticed that in           some Rent  Acts provisions regulating heritability           of commercial premises have also been made whereas           in some  Rent Acts  no such  provisions either  in           respect of  residential  tenancies  or  commercial           tenancies has  been made.  As in  the present Act,           there is no provision regulating the rights of the           heirs to  inherit the  tenancy rights  of premises           which is  commercial premises,  the tenancy  right           which is heritable devolves on the heirs under the           ordinary law  of succession.  The tenancy right of           Wasti Ram, therefore, devolves on all the heirs of           Wasti Ram on his death." 9      In view  of the  above decision,  we are of the opinion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

that  the   right  to   occupy  the   premises   after   the determination of  the lease  cannot  be  bequeathed  to  any person under  a will who does not satisfy the qualification, referred to  in section  5(11) (c)  (ii) of the Act. In Gian Devi’s case  (supra) the  Court was  not concerned  with the right of  a tenant  to  bequeath  his  right  to  remain  in possession of  a premises  after the  determination  of  the lease which  he possessed  under the  statute in favour of a third party  under a  will. The  Court was  dealing with the case of  persons who  claimed that  they had  inherited such right by  way of  intestate succession.  Naturally the Court was inclined to take a view favourable to the members of the family  of   the  tenant  who  would  be  exposed  to  grave difficulties if  they were  to be  thrown out of the demised premises in  which the  tenant was  carrying on his business till  his   death.  This   is  clear   from  the   following observations of A.N. Sen, J. at page 811 :-           "A  tenant   of  any   commercial   premises   has           necessarily  to  use  the  premises  for  business           purposes. Business  carried on  by a tenant of any           commercial premises  may be and often is, his only           occupation and  the source  of livelihood  of  the           tenant and  his family;  and the  tenant, if he is           residing in  a tenanted  house, may also be paying           his rent  out of  the said income........ The mere           fact that  in the  Act no  provision has been made           with regard  to the heirs of tenants in respect of           commercial tenancies  on the  death of  the tenant           after termination of the tenancy, as has been done           in the case of heirs of the tenants of residential           premises, does  not indicate  that the Legislature           intended  that   the  heirs   of  the  tenants  of           commercial  premises   will  cases  to  enjoy  the           protection afforded  to the  tenant under the Act.           The Legislature could never have possibly intended           that with  the death of a tenant of the commercial           premises, the  business carried  on by the tenant,           however, flourishing  it may  be and  even if  the           same constituted  the source  of livelihood of the           members of the family, must necessarily come to an           end on  the death  of the  tenant only because the           tenant died after the contractual tenancy had been           terminated. It could never have been the intention           of the Legislature 10           that the  entire family of a tenant depending upon           the business  carried on  by the  tenant should be           completely stranded  and the  business carried  on           for years  in the  premises which had been let out           to  the   tenant  must  stop  functioning  at  the           premises which  the heirs  of the  deceased tenant           must necessarily  vacate, as  they are afforded no           protection under  the Act.  We are  of the opinion           that in  case of  commercial premises  governed by           the Delhi  Act, the Legislature has not thought it           fit in  the light  of the  situation at  Delhi  to           place any  kind of restriction on the ordinary law           of inheritance with regard to succession."      The reasons given by the Court in the above decision in support of the case of the heirs of a tenant who inherit his business under the intestate succession would not however be available in  the case  of a person who is a stranger to the family who claims the right to the tenancy under a will of a deceased tenant.  There can  possibly  be  no  justification either in  law or  in equity  to extend  the meaning  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

expression ’tenant’ so as to include such strangers also. If such a  right of  a  tenant  were  to  be  recognised,  what prevents him  from transferring  the building to any body he likes who  is totally  unconnected with  him or  who is  not dependent on  him such  as a  temple, a  church, a mosque, a hospital, a foreigner, a multinational company and any other person of  the counrty?  The Legislature  could  never  have intended to confer such a right on him and exclude the right of a  landlord to  get back  possession of  his building for ever even  after the  death of  the tenant  with whom he had entered into contract initially. Perhaps even in the case of a person  who may  succeed under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of section 5(11)(c)  there can  be no  further devolution after his death  again  under  these  sub-clauses.  This  question however need  not be pursued in this case. (However see Para 602 Vol.  27 Halsbury’s  Laws of  England 4th Edn.). When in the case  before us the Legislature has restricted the right to inherit  the right to the tenancy of the premises let out for business,  trade or  storage to any member of a tenant’s family carrying  on business,  trade  or  storage  with  the tenant at  the time of his death it is not open to the Court by judicial construction to extend the said right to persons who are  not members  of the tenant’s family who claim under testamentary succession. 11      In Jaspal  Singh  v.  The  Additional  District  Judge, Bulandshahr &  Ors. A.I.R.  [1984] S.C. 1880, this Court had occasion to  consider the validity of a bequest of the right of a  tenant to  continue to  occupy the  premises after the determination of  the tenancy  under  U.P.  Urban  Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 under a will. Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act referred to above defined the expression ’tenant’ thus:-      "3. 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 -           (1) in  the case  of a  residential building, such           only of  his heirs as normally resided with him in           the building at the time of his death ;           (2)in the  case of a non-residential building, his           heirs ;"      The appellant in that case claimed the right to tenancy held by  one Nuabat  Singh under  the will  of Naubat Singh. This Court  held that the appellant would be a tenant within the meaning  of section 3(a) of that Act only when he was an heir but  the appellant  was not  a son  but only  nephew of Naubat Singh.  The said  U.P. Act also contained a provision in section  12(2) thereof  which stated  that in the case of non-residential  building  where  a  tenant  carrying  on  a business in  the building  admitted a  person who  was not a member of  his family  as a partner or a new partner, as the case may  be, the  tenant should be deemed to have ceased to occupy the  building. Under  those circumstances  this Court held at page 1885 thus:           "From a  survey of  these provisions  it  will  be           clear that  if a  tenant parts  with possession of           the premises  in his possession, the same would be           treated  as  vacant......  In  the  case  of  non-           residential building, when a tenant is carrying on           business in  the building,  admits a person who is           not a  member of  his family  as a  partner or new           partner as  the case  may be,  the tenant shall be           deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. If a           tenant sublets  the  premises,  he  is  liable  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

         ejectment.   Obviously,   therefore,   there   are           restrictions placed by the Act on the right of the           tenant to  transfer or  sublet the  tenancy rights           and he  can keep possession for the purpose of his           family, for 12           his business  and for  the business  of his family           members.  He   obviously  cannot   be  allowed  to           transfer a  tenancy right.  A fortiori, the scheme           of the  Act does  not  warrant  the  transfer  the           tenancy right to be effective after his lifetime."      In the Act under consideration in the present case also there is  a provision  similar to the provision contained in section 12(2)  of the  U.P. Act.  Section 15(1)  of the  Act reads thus:           "15. In absence of contract to the contrary tenant           not to  sublet or  transfer -  (1) Notwithstanding           anything contained in any law, (but subject to any           contract to  the contrary)  it shall not be lawful           after the  coming in operation of this Act for any           tenant to  sub-let the  whole or  any part  of the           premises let  to him  or to  assign or transfer in           any other manner his interest therein......."                                          (Underlining by us)      In Dr.  Anant Trimback  Sabnis v.  Vasant Pratap Pandit A.I.R. [1980]  Bom. 69,  the High Court of Bombay has in the light of  the section 15(1) of the Act taken the view and in our opinion rightly that the words ’to assign or transfer in any other  manner his  interest therein’ in section 15(1) of the Act had the effect of prohibiting the disposition of the tenancy right  by a will in the absence of a contract to the contrary. The  High Court of Bombay observed at pages 72 and 73 thus:-           "12.  Prohibition   against  transfer  of  tenancy           rights by  the tenants  is just a corollary to the           restrictions on  the landlords  and  is  aimed  at           protecting  them,   in  turn,  by  preventing  the           tenants  from   abusing   these   protections   by           thrusting uncontemplated  strangers as  tenants on           the landlords,  willy nilly,  for monetary gain or           favouring any  friend or  relative of  theirs, and           thus ensuring,  that the immunity against eviction           is  not   expanded  into  licence  to  dispose  of           premises as  if it  were their  own and  landlords           rights are  not invaded  beyond what  is  strictly           necessary  ..................................  13.           Bequest of  tenancy rights  in this context stands           on the  same footing as any other transfer by sub-           lease, sale,  assignment  gift,  volition  of  the           tenant in  inducting uncontemplated  strangers  in           the premises and thrusting them on the landlord, 13           being the common element of these dispositions. It           makes little  difference to  the invasion  on  the           landlord’s  right   whether  such   uncontemplated           stranger is  so inducted by the tenant for gain or           just as  a favour - invasion in either case having           no  nexus   with  the   object  underlying   these           protections. It  is difficult  to imagine  why the           legislature could  have intended  to exclude  such           bequests  from   the  sweep   of  the   prohibited           assignments and  transfers under  section 15, when           bequest is  pregnant with  the same evils as other           transfers. The  words ’transfer  in any manner’ in           this context  only  go  to  signify  inclusion  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

         ’bequest’ also therein.           14. It is not without significance that legatee is           not  included   in  the  definition  of  the  word           ’tenant’. Section  5(11) of  the Act defines it to           mean ’a person who is liable to pay the rent or on           whose  account   the  rent   is  payable  for  any           premises.’ Under  sub-clauses (a)  to  (c)  it  is           enlarged to  include some  others whom legislature           considered it  necessary to  protect.  Clause  (c)           provides for  the succession  to tenancy rights on           the death of the tenant. Thus, this sub-clause (c)           by providing for the mode of succession, impliedly           excludes successors  from the purview of the width           of the  main clause.  Secondly, it  restricts  the           succession even by operation of law of inheritance           to the  persons and  situations indicated  therein           and impliedly  excluding all other heirs. In fact,           all the  heirs are  liable to  be excluded  if any           other member  of the  family was  staying with the           tenant at  the time of his death. Thirdly and more           importantly, legatee  is not  included  either  in           this sub-clause  or any  other  sub-clauses.  This           demonstrates  legislative   intent   to   prohibit           testamentary disposition  of the  tenancy  rights.           There is no other express provision to this effect           in the  Rent Act.  It shall have to be traced only           in Section  15 thereof  by interpreting  the words           ’assign’ and  ’transfer’ in  their generic  sense.           This also  fortifies our  interpretation of  these           words." 14      The above  reasons given  by the  Bombay High  Court in support of  its decision  are  perfectly  justified  in  the context of  the object  and  the  scheme  of  the  Act.  The language of  the statute  also  lends  itself  to  the  same construction.      We, therefore,  agree with  the view  taken by the Full Bench  of   the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  that  on  a  true interpretation of the provisions of the Act a bequest of the right to  the tenancy  in respect of premises referred to in section 5(11)(c)(ii)  of the  Act after the determination of the lease,  which is  protected by  the Act  cannot be  made under a  will in  favour of a person not referred to in that sub-clause. We  do not  find any  kind of  justification  to saddle the  landlord with  the liability to treat a stranger who is  not  referred  to  in  sub-clause  (ii)  of  section 5(11)(c) of  the Act  as a  tenant on the basis of a bequest made under a will by the tenant.      Since we  are disposing of the case on the basis of the express  provisions   of  the  Act  which  are  sufficiently restrictive in character, we do not propose to deal with the wider proposition that a statutory tenancy which is personal to the  tenant cannot  be bequeathed  at all under a will in favour of any body. We leave the said question open.      In the  circumstances, there  is no ground to interfere with the  judgment of  the High  Court.  This  petition  is, therefore, dismissed. S.R.                                Petition dismissed. 15