Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to a shop situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines Market, Allahabad, which was originally let out in 1937 by the appellant's grandfather to late Sheobux Roy. After Sheobux Roy's death in 1941, his five sons inherited the tenancy, and in a family partition in 1943 the shop fell to the share of three sons, Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy, who continued the business. In 1976, Ganpat Roy and his son Ramesh Roy constituted a new partnership firm with Swarup Kailash, son-in-law of Ganpat Roy, to carry on textile business in the tenanted premises. The appellant filed suit for eviction in 1979 alleging sub-letting by induction of the son-in-law as partner. In March 1981, third parties filed an allotment application claiming deemed vacancy. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by order dated 13.8.1981 held deemed vacancy and directed notification; a recall application by tenants was allowed on 13.9.1981, but by order dated 18.11.1981 the Rent Controller negatived their contention and confirmed deemed vacancy. The tenants' writ petition was initially dismissed as not maintainable, but on Special Leave Petition the Supreme Court on 29.3.1985 set aside that order and directed the High Court to rehear the writ petition on merits, staying further proceedings. By impugned order dated 21.9.1992, the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that after death of original tenant, his sons became tenants in common and not joint tenants, and therefore contravention by one son by inducting his son-in-law as partner would not result in deemed vacancy of the whole premises. The High Court quashed the Rent Controller's orders. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that tenancy rights devolve on heirs of deceased tenant jointly as a single tenancy, and all heirs are joint tenants liable for breach by any one joint tenant. The Court further held that under Section 12(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, a tenant carrying on business in a non-residential building who admits a person not a member of his family as partner is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building, and read with Section 12(4), a deemed vacancy occurs. The Court held that a son-in-law is not a member of the family under Section 3(g), and by Explanation C(i) of Section 25, such admission amounts to deemed sub-letting, which is a ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e). The Court also reiterated that when a statute creates a legal fiction, full effect must be given to it and carried to its logical end; the deeming clause leaves no scope for inquiry into actual subletting. The Court overruled Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh and relied on H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul. The final decision restored the Rent Controller's orders declaring deemed vacancy and held that deemed sub-letting had occurred.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Devolution of Tenancy Rights - Joint Tenancy of Heirs - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - After death of original tenant, tenancy rights devolve on heirs jointly as a single tenancy; all heirs succeed as joint tenants and are bound by breach of any joint tenant - Held that there is no division of premises or rent; all heirs of original tenant have to suffer for contravention by any one joint tenant (Paras Not mentioned)
B) Rent Control and Eviction - Deemed Vacancy - Non-residential Premises - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sections 12(2) and 12(4) - Tenant carrying on business admits person not a member of his family as partner or new partner, tenant deemed to have ceased to occupy building - Held that induction of son-in-law as partner triggered deemed vacancy of premises (Paras Not mentioned)
C) Rent Control and Eviction - Sub-letting - Deemed Sub-letting - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 25 Explanation C(i) and Section 20(2)(e) - Admission of non-family member as partner amounts to deemed sub-letting and is a ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e) - Held that deemed sub-letting occurred and constituted ground for eviction (Paras Not mentioned)
D) Statutory Interpretation - Legal Fiction - Deeming Clause - Full Effect - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Court must ascertain purpose and persons for statutory fiction and give full effect to logical end - Held that deeming clause leaves no scope for investigation into actual subletting; primary object is to check and restrict subletting by inducting non-family member as partner (Paras Not mentioned)
E) Family Law - Definition of Family - Son-in-law not a member - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 3(g) - Son-in-law not included in definition of family; no scope for different interpretation - Held that son-in-law shall not be deemed a member of family within Section 3(g) (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether induction of son-in-law as partner in business carried out in tenanted non-residential premises resulted in deemed vacancy under Sections 12(2) and 12(4); Whether Explanation C(i) of Section 25 amounted to sub-letting within meaning of Section 20(2)(e); Whether whole premises deemed vacant even if subletting by one joint tenant; Interpretation of deeming provision and legal fiction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 21.9.1992 set aside; orders of Rent Controller dated 13.8.1981 and 18.11.1981 declaring deemed vacancy under Section 12(2) read with Section 12(4) restored; held that admission of son-in-law as partner constituted deemed sub-letting under Explanation C(i) of Section 25, a ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e); overruled Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights devolve jointly on heirs of deceased tenant
- Single tenancy devolves on all heirs
- Joint tenants liable for breach by any joint tenant
- Admission of non-family member as partner in non-residential building amounts to deemed vacancy under Section 12(2)
- Deemed vacancy read with Section 12(4)
- Deemed sub-letting under Explanation C(i) of Section 25
- Son-in-law not a family member under Section 3(g)
- Deeming provision must be given full effect to logical end
- No factual inquiry into actual subletting under deeming clause
Case Details
1995 LawText (SC) (01) 14
Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1993
P.B. Sawant, Dr. A.S. Anand, N.P. Singh
P.C. Jain, D.K. Garg, P. Choudhary, Prashant Bhushan, Jayant Bhushan, C. Mohan Rao, Ms. Ritu Gupta
The Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Eviction and deemed vacancy proceedings under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 concerning non-residential shop premises.
Remedy Sought
Appellant landlord sought eviction of respondent tenants on ground of sub-letting by induction of son-in-law as partner, and enforcement of deemed vacancy declaration.
Filing Reason
In 1976, one of the tenant heirs admitted his son-in-law as partner in business carried out in tenanted non-residential premises without consent, allegedly causing sub-letting and deemed vacancy.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller declared deemed vacancy on 13.8.1981 and confirmed after objections on 18.11.1981; High Court initially dismissed writ as not maintainable; Supreme Court on 29.3.1985 remanded to High Court for merits; High Court by order dated 21.9.1992 held heirs were tenants in common and quashed vacancy orders.
Issues
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was a deemed vacancy because of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act.
Whether Explanation C(i) of Section 25 amounted to sub-letting within the meaning of Section 20(2)(e) of the Act.
If induction of son-in-law as partner amounted to sub-letting under Section 25, whether the whole premises were deemed vacant.
Whether the expression 'deemed' in Sections 12(2), 12(4) and Explanation C(i) of Section 25 should be read as conclusive or rebuttable.
Whether a son-in-law could be considered a member of the family under Section 3(g) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent tenants contended that before holding sub-letting, a finding was required that the object of inducting son-in-law as partner was to actually and factually sub-let the premises to him.
Respondent tenants urged that the expression 'deemed' in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 12 and Explanation C(i) of Section 25 should be read as 'deemed until the contrary is proved' and not conclusive.
Respondent tenants argued that if strict interpretation was given to Section 12(2), similar interpretation should apply to Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(3).
Respondent tenants submitted that although son-in-law might not be a family member under Section 3(g), he should be deemed a member of family as generally understood, and admitting him as partner should not amount to sub-letting.
Appellant argued that admission of son-in-law as partner attracted deeming provisions and resulted in deemed vacancy and deemed sub-letting, warranting eviction under Section 20(2)(e).
Ratio Decidendi
After death of original tenant, tenancy rights devolve on heirs jointly as a single tenancy; all heirs are joint tenants and for any breach by one joint tenant, all heirs have to suffer. Under Section 12(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, a tenant carrying on business in a non-residential building who admits a person not a member of his family as a partner is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building, and under Section 12(4) such cessor constitutes deemed vacancy. Explanation C(i) of Section 25 provides that admission of such person as partner amounts to deemed sub-letting, which is a ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e). A son-in-law is not a member of the family under Section 3(g). Statutory fictions must be given full effect and carried to their logical end, leaving no scope for factual inquiry into actual subletting.
Judgment Excerpts
After the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants and for any breach committed by any of such joint tenants, all the heirs of the original tenant have to suffer.
When a statute creates a legal fiction saying that something shall be deemed to have been done which in fact and truth has not been done, the Court has to examine and ascertain as to for what purpose and between what persons such a statutory fiction is to be resorted to. Thereafter, full effect has to be given to such statutory fiction and it has to be carried to its logical end.
The primary object of sub-section (2) of section 12 is to check and restrict sub-letting of premises or part thereof by the original tenant by inducting any person who is not a member of the family within the meaning of the Act as a partner in the business. But, the special feature of the deeming clause in the said sub-section leaves no scope for investigation and examination as to whether in the process of inducting such person as a partner, in fact there has been a sub-letting of the premises.
A son-in-law shall not be deemed to be a member of the family within the definition u/s 3(g) of the Act as there is no scope for interpreting that expression in a different manner.
Procedural History
In 1937, shop let to Sheobux Roy by appellant's grandfather; Sheobux Roy died on 3.2.1941; in 1943 family partition, shop fell to share of three sons; in 1976 new partnership firm with son-in-law as partner constituted; in 1979 appellant filed suit for eviction on ground of sub-letting; in March 1981 third parties filed allotment application claiming deemed vacancy; Rent Controller by order dated 13.8.1981 held deemed vacancy and directed notification; respondents filed recall application on 11.9.1981, allowed on 13.9.1981; Rent Controller by order dated 18.11.1981 negatived contention and confirmed deemed vacancy; respondents filed writ petition, dismissed as not maintainable; respondents filed Special Leave Petition, Supreme Court on 29.3.1985 allowed and remanded to High Court for merits, staying further proceedings; High Court by impugned order dated 21.9.1992 allowed writ petition, holding heirs as tenants in common and quashing vacancy orders; present Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1993 filed and allowed.
Acts & Sections
- U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: 3(g), 12(1)(b), 12(2), 12(3), 12(4), 20(2)(e), 25 Explanation C(i)
