New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a nephew is not included in the definition of ‘family’ under Section 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and has therefore ordered eviction of a tenant and his nephew-partner from a sub-let shop, even though the nephew had been brought up by the tenant since childhood.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing an appeal by Islam Hussain and others against the Allahabad High Court's order dated 11.09.2012, which had dismissed their writ petition. The writ petition challenged the dismissal of the landlords' suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent by the Small Cause Court, Varanasi, on 04.03.1998, and the dismissal of their revision by the Additional District Judge on 17.12.2003.
The landlords had let two shops, referred to as Shop A and Shop B, to Hajari Lal. In 1990, the tenant entered into a partnership with his nephew, Jagarnath, in respect of Shop B. The landlords sued for ejectment on the grounds of sub-letting and default in payment of rent. Though the tenant admitted the partnership, all the courts below dismissed the suit on the reasoning that the nephew, having been brought up by the tenant since childhood, was a member of his family, so the partnership did not amount to sub-letting.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court examined Section 3(g) of the 1972 Act, which defines family in relation to a landlord or tenant as his or her spouse, male lineal descendants, and such parents, grandparents and unmarried, widowed, divorced or judicially separated daughters or daughters of a male lineal descendant as normally reside with him or her. On a plain reading, the Bench held that “A nephew of landlord or a tenant is, thus, not included” in this definition.
The respondents relied on K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal, where a foster son was treated as a member of the family. The Court distinguished that ruling, noting that the tenant there had left a Will bequeathing a life estate to the foster son, so it was decided on facts special to that case. In the present case, apart from the nephew living with the tenant since childhood, there were no special facts that could bring a nephew within the definition by interpretation.
The Court held that reading a nephew into the definition would amount to expanding it, and that if the Legislature did not intend to include other relations, it is not open to the Court to include them. Once a nephew was held to be outside the family, the factual basis for eviction from Shop B, namely the admitted partnership and sub-letting, stood established.
However, the Court declined to order eviction from both shops. The landlords had argued that the tenancy was joint and common, so sub-letting a part should lead to eviction from the entire premises. The Court noted that the evidence, and the findings of the courts below, showed Shop A and Shop B were treated separately throughout, and since the default occurred only in respect of Shop B, it directed eviction from Shop B alone.
The Court set aside the impugned order in part and directed the tenants and the sub-tenant to hand over vacant possession of Shop B within six months, subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry within one week. They must clear all arrears of rent for Shop B within one month, continue paying current rent or occupational charges until they vacate, and not create any third-party interest in the shop. The appeal was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prakash Gautam, Mr. Manoj Kumar Tyagi and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta, Miss Saket Gautam, Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Mr. Amrit Keshari Nandan Pradhan and Mr. Akshat Sharma, Advocates.
Case Title: Islam Hussain & Ors. vs. Hajari Lal & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8092 of 2013
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
