KARIM MOHAMMED FAKIR MOHAMMED Vs. ABDULMAJID FATEHMOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the tenancy in the premises in question stood transmitted in favour of the respondents herein is the moot point. What is in focus is the interpretative ambit of section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) SINCE both the revision applications arise out of common judgment involving common facts, they were heard together and are being simultaneously considered for the decision thereon. The dispute between the parties originated when one Rehmatbibi Fakirmohamad Pirmohamad filed a rent application No. 102 of 1980 before the court of Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Surat at Surat. She having died on 01.04.1984, Karimmohamad Fakirmohamad entered the record as the heir of the deceased, who now is the applicant in both the Civil Revision Applications captioned above. In the said rent application, a declaration was sought to the effect that a decision be given as to who had inherited the tenancy in the property bearing No. 2665 situated in Ward No. 3, Momnawaad, Salabatpura, Surat and it was further prayed to declare that the tenancy had not transmitted in any case, upon the respondents. The said Abdulmajid Fatemohammad and Abbasbhai Gulamhusain Alia are also the respondents in the present revision applications.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Rajesh Dave for the applicants in both the revision applications submitted that in holding that the respondents inherited statutory tenancy and became tenants within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c) of the Act, the Court below disregarded the basic requirements of the provision. It was submitted that the respondents were distant cousins and in treating them as members of family, the Courts erred. According to his submission, the word "family" occurring in Section 5(11)(c) could not have been given wider meaning than it deserve. He submitted that the concept of "family" in the said provision was explained by this Court in Madhuben Natvarlal Vs Prajapati Parshottam Tulsidas [ : 1990 (2) GLR 1177 : 1990 (2) GLH 265]. Placing a heavy reliance on the said decision, it was submitted that in that decision, distant nephews and cousins were refused to be treated by the Court as family members and it was observed that normally, "family" would not include distant nephews howsoever broad the meaning to the word may be given.