SONI NAROTTAM KESHAVLAL Vs. (SMT.) SHANTABEHN KESHAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord sued the petitioner for obtaining possession of the suit premises let out to the defendant on the ground of unlawful transfer and/or assignment thereof to his brother Himatlal. It was the case of the defendant that the suit premises were hired for joint family. As there was no sufficient accommodation in the rented premises occupied by his father he hired this premises and after the death of his father, he shifted to the premises occupied by his father and his brother Himatlal who is his younger brother, occupied the suit premises. Upon appreciation of the evidence both the Courts below came to the conclusion that Himatlal was occuying some other hired premises during the life time of his father and only after the death of his father, the defendant shifted to his father's premises transferring the suit premises to his brother.

(2.) In the present case it has been from the very beginning the case of the landlord that the defendant was not to allow his brother to occupy the suit premises, whereas upon the appreciation of the evidence it has been an established fact that the suit premises were transferred or assigned by the defendant to his brother Himatlal. It is possible that such transfer might not be accompanied with money consideration. However, it is not the case of the defendant that the brother was merely a licencee of defendant-tenant and that his occupation was premissive; in fact that has not been the case at any point of time. The appellate Court has considered the impact of the use of the words "transfer" and "assign" appearing in Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. In that view of the matter, the argument that the transfer or assignment must be proved to be for valuable consideration cannot be accepted.