MOHANLAL MANSUKHBHAI GANDHI Vs. PUNJIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by confirming the trial Courts decree has come in this appeal.

(2.) There is no dispute that the deceased contractual tenant Rana Chhotabhai Nanabhai though his tenancy was duly terminated before his death on March 9 1960 he was at the date of his death continuing in the suit premises as a statutory tenant. There is also no dispute that the deceased was doing grocery business in the suit shop and that he had left his widow Haribai and his daughter Punjiben as his heirs and all these persons-widow Haribai daughter Punjiben and daughters husband Manilal Chhaganlal were all residing with the deceased at the time of his death. The case of the plaintiff was that after the death of the tenant Chhotalal Naranbhai statutory tenancy was continued only by widow Haribai. Haribai died on February 11 1964 The plaintiff gave notice Ex.27 on August 18 1964 The defendant daughter and the daughters husband in their reply Ex. 30 dated September 1 1954 claimed protection as statutory tenant. The plaintiffs suit was on the basis of title for evicting the defendants as being in unauthorised possession. The learned Single Judge having held that they were not in unauthorised possession but under sec. 5 (11) (c) in their own rights on the death of the statutory tenant Chhotalal the suit for eviction must fail. That is why the plaintiff has come in this appeal.

(3.) The legal position is now well settled as to the true interpretation of sec. 5(11)(c) which was in force at the relevant time. Sec. 5(11)(c) provides that a tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises and includes (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 prece- ding the death of the tenant as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court and......... In Heirs of deceased MOHANLAL V. MUKTABAI 12 G.L.R. 272 at page 276 a Division Bench consisting of A. D. Desai J. and my learned Brother interpreted this relevant clause in sec. 5(11)(c) in this inclusive definition of the term tenant. It was pointed out that all the various clauses of sec. 5(11) make no reference whatever to the nature of the premises but only to the classes of the persons who are entitled to become tenants. Clause (c) of sec. 5(11) provides that any member of the tenants family residing with him at the time or within three months immediately preced- ing his death as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court is a tenant. The words residing with him control the expression any member of the tenants family and the said words did not refer to the nature of the leased premises. Because in this relevant definition as it stood before 1965 there were no words of limitation such as in respect of premises let for residence so as to restrict this benevolent clause only to residential premises and as various sub-clauses (a) (aa) (b) clearly indicated that they applied to all the premises in absence of any words of limitation in this relevant sub-clause (c) it could not be held that the benefit of this provision was to accrue only in respect of residential premises. It was pointed out that the legislature elected sec. 5(11)(c) for the purpose of protecting members of the tenants family residing at the time of or within three months immediately preceding his death. The protection is not to any and every member of his family hut only to such member of the tenants family who was residing with him at the time of or within three months immediately preceding his death. It was therefore held that this provision laid down the manner of devolution of statutory tenancy and it devolved on the death of the statutory tenant on any member of the tenants family residing with hill at the time of or within three months immediately preceding his death. It was also pointed out that in many cases maintenance of members of tenants family residing with him depended on the income derived from the business and in order that such members of the tenants family might not be thrown on the street but continued to maintain themselves by carrying business in the premises the legislature appeared to have enacted the provisions of sec. 5 (11)(c) of the Act. Therefore it was in terms held that the true const- ruction of sec. 5 (11)(c) of the Act is that any member of the tenants family residing with him at the time of or within three months immedia- tely preceding his death was a tenant within the meaning of the said provisions irrespective of the purpose for which the premises were let. The ratio was categorical that on the death of the statutory tenant any member of his family residing with him at the time of or within three months immediately preceding his death was entitled to become a tenant. In SUDALAIMUTHU V. PALANIYANDAVAN A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 469 in similar context of such tenancy legislation where the benefit was to accrue to the members of the family it was in terms held relying on Websters New World Dictionary that family would include a group of people related by blood or marriage relatives. A person can therefore be regarded as being the member of his wifes family and not merely of his fathers family. The term family was not to be construed in the narrow sense to mean only a member of a Hindu Joint Family but even to include a son-in-law as member of the family keeping in mind the salutary principle that the definition of the tenant in such tenancy legislation was applicable irrespective of the personal laws governing the parties. A similar wider interpretation must be given even to the present definition as is pointed out by the Division Bench because the legislature has enacted sec. 5(11)(c) for the purpose of protecting members of the tenants family residing with him at the time of or within 3 months immediately preced- ing his death. The tenants definition is also applicable to all persons not only to the widow and the daughter but also to daughters husband or the son-in-law as held by their Lordships in the aforesaid decision.