MEHBOOBBHAI NOORMOHMMAD KISHANGADHWALA Vs. YUSUFBHAI IBRAHIM VADNAGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.F. Mehta on behalf of the petitioners, who by way of this petition assails an order dtd. 24/8/2022 passed by the learned Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, under Exh. 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2020, whereby an application preferred by the appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 herein to bring legal heirs of deceased appellant No.2 on record had been rejected.

(2.) This Court has considered the documents on record including the order impugned and the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Mehta on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that Sec. 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, inter alia defines the term "tenant" and whereas insofar as the successors of a tenant are concerned, the said sub-sec. clarifies that 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, would be deemed to be a tenant. In the instant case as noted by the learned Court below, it appears that while the present petitioner No.1 had sought to join the daughters and sons of the appellant No.2 on record, the learned Court below has noted that in the suit proceedings while there was no dispute with regard to tenancy, it was mentioned by the present petitioner-original defendant himself in his written statement that after the death of his late father, the present petitioner and his late mother were the only persons residing in the suit premises and whereas other legal heirs were residing separately during the life time of father of the present petitioner. The learned Court below having come to a conclusion that based upon the written statement of the petitioner that at the time when original tenant had expired, since the present petitioner and his late mother were the only persons residing in the tenanted property and whereas since no legal heirs of the deceased original tenant were residing in the suit premises, and therefore, such proposed heirs cannot be permitted to be brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased tenant.

(3.) Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality whatsoever in the impugned decision rendered by the Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, and whereas this Court is in agreement with the observations of the learned Bench of Small Causes Court, that the application Exh.16 for bringing legal heirs had been preferred by the present petitioner only with a view to delaying the proceedings. Such a conclusion is arrived at by this Court on the basis that while the original suit had been filed in the year 2011, as per the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Mehta, from 2011 till the death of the original appellant No.2, none of the brothers or sisters of the petitioner No.1 had ever attempted to have themselves joined in the suit proceedings. As noted hereinabove, the present petitioner has also in his written statement clearly mentioned that except for the petitioner and his late mother, at time time of death of original tenant i.e. father of the present petitioner, none of the legal heirs of the father of the present petitioner were residing in the suit premises. Thus, it appears that while the present petitioner on one hand in the suit proceedings restricted the dispute of tenancy between himself, his late mother and the landlord, on account of death of mother of the present petitioner, inspite of the fact that other legal heirs, according to the present petitioner himself, were neither residing in the suit premises at the time of death of his late mother nor immediate three months of death of his late mother, yet the petitioner had preferred the application Exh.16 before the learned Court below for bringing legal heirs of his late mother. Therefore, it clearly appears that the application Exh.16 was preferred without any cause whatsoever and hence this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned decision.