Mumbai, June 11: In a significant ruling on the inheritance of tenancy rights under the erstwhile Bombay Rent Act, the Bombay High Court has upheld the tenancy claim of a woman to a flat in Dadar’s Parsi Colony, holding that an heir need not be residing with the tenant at the time of death to inherit tenancy rights.
High Court decision
Justice MM Sathaye dismissed a petition filed by the trustees of the Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay, challenging concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and its appellate bench, which had declared Katty Mistry as the lawful tenant of a flat in Patel Building after the death of the original tenant, Baji B. Patel, in April 1993.
The trust had argued that Mistry had no contractual relationship with the landlord and had unlawfully occupied the premises after Patel’s death. According to the trust, its representative had locked the flat and pasted a notice inviting claims from Patel’s heirs. However, when the representative returned about an hour and a half later, the padlock had allegedly been broken and four persons were found inside the premises. The matter was subsequently reported to the police.
Dispute over heirship
The trust further denied that Mistry was related to Patel or that she had been residing with him during his lifetime. It described her as a trespasser attempting to unlawfully take over the premises.
Mistry, however, maintained that she was Patel’s first cousin, being the daughter of his mother’s sister, and was therefore entitled to tenancy rights as his heir. She sought a declaration from the Small Causes Court recognising her as the tenant and directing the landlord to transfer rent receipts to her name.
Before the High Court, Mistry’s counsel argued that her claim was based not only on being a family member but also on being Patel’s heir under the applicable succession law. The court noted that both lower courts had found that she failed to prove she was residing with Patel at the time of his death. However, they had concurrently held that she successfully established her status as his heir.
Genealogical evidence and legal interpretation
The court observed that Mistry had produced a genealogy showing that her mother and Patel’s mother were real sisters. Significantly, there was no cross-examination challenging this relationship. The landlord, despite claiming that other heirs existed, failed to establish the existence of any other legal heir.
“It is therefore clear that section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act has two parts. First part deals with family member residing with tenant at the time of tenant’s death. But the second part applies in the absence of such member and in that case, ‘any heir of deceased tenant’ can be decided by the Court as tenant,” Justice Sathaye held.
Also Watch:
The court added that no one except Mistry had come forward claiming heirship. Rejecting the landlord’s reliance on an obituary notice that did not mention Mistry, the court said: “An obituary note can be given in the newspaper after death of a person by any of his relatives and mere non-inclusion of name in the obituary note will not take away a person’s relationship.”
Finding no perversity in the findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the petition. The matter had been pending before the High Court since 2000.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
