CASE NAME: Soli Behram Sukhadwala Vs Nitin D. SohniI and ORS.
CASE NO.: Civil Revision Application No.187 OF 2007 with Civil Application No.395 of 2019
DATED: Judgment reserved on: 20 September 2024.
Judgment pronounced on: 1 October 2024.
QUORUM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Civil Revision Application filed by Soli Behram Sukhadwala against the respondents is concerned with the tenancy rights in the residential property located at Sohni Mansion, Mumbai.
The applicant claims to be the nephew of the original tenant, Dinamai Rustomji Master and further claimed that he started residing with Dinamai in 1974. After Dinamai’s death in 1977, the Applicant continued his residence in the suit premises and addressed correspondence with the original landlord (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) for asserting his rights as tenant in respect of the suit premises under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947(the Bombay Rent Act).
The respondents, including the original landlords, auction purchasers and the sublettees, contest the applicant’s claims, denying his relationship with Dinamai and his residence in the suit premises.
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court initially ruled in favor of the applicant, but this decision was later reversed, leading to the current revision application challenging that ruling.
The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, stating that the appellant was not entitled to tenancy rights in the suit premises as he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his close relationship with Dinamai or that he resided with her as a part of her family. Thus, disposing of the civil application related to the revision as a result of this judgment.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the applicant, Soli Behram Sukhadwala, can be considered a tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act as a family member of the deceased original tenant, Dinamai Rustomji Master.
- Whether the applicant has sufficiently proven his relationship with Dinamai and his continuous residence with her in the suit premises prior to her death.
- To what extent the documentary evidence presented by the applicant, including the Ration Card, Will, Codicil, and affidavit, in establishing his claim is valid and credible.
- To what extent the applicant’s motives and timing of claims affect credibility and intentions regarding Dinamai’s death.
- The interpretation of the term “family” within the context of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and whether it includes distant relatives like the applicant.
- The validity and credibility of the evidence provided by both the applicant and the respondents regarding the applicant’s residence and relationship with Dinamai.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Section 5(11)(c)) Defines “tenant” to include any member of the tenant’s family residing with the tenant at the time of the tenant’s death, allowing for the transmission of tenancy rights under certain conditions.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(Section 115): Governs the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court, allowing it to review and set aside decisions made by lower courts if they are found to be erroneous.
3.General Principles of Evidence: The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish his relationship with the original tenant and his residence in the suit premises as a family member. The admissibility and weight of documentary evidence, such as the Ration Card, Will, Codicil, and affidavit, are critical in determining the validity of the applicant’s claims.
- Judicial Precedents: Relevant case law interpreting the definition of “family” and the requirements for establishing tenancy rights for distant relatives, including judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts that provide guidance on the interpretation of tenancy laws and the concept of family in the context of rent control legislation.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant, Soli Behram Sukhadwala, argues that he lived with the original tenant, Dinamai Rustomji Master since 1974 and continued to reside in the suit premises after her death(in 1977), asserting that this qualifies him as a tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Further, he claims he has conclusively proven his relationship with Dinamai, by presenting documents such as the Ration Card, Will, Codicil, and affidavit, which indicate that he was a family member residing with her.
The appellant also points out that the respondents (landlords and auction purchasers) did not lead any evidence to disprove his claims regarding his relationship and residence, thereby supporting his position. He contends that the original landlords consented to his residence in the suit premises by not objecting to it until after he filed R.A.D. Suit No.5813 of 1988 in the Court of Small Causes for declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, indicating their acceptance of his status as a tenant. He argues that the Appellate Bench has erred in reversing well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, which had found in his favor based on the evidence presented.
He emphasizes a broader interpretation of the term “family,” citing judicial precedents and argues that it should include near relatives and that the courts have historically recognized the rights of individuals who have lived with the tenant as family members.
The appellant ultimately asserts that the intent of the Bombay Rent Act is to protect individuals who have lived with the tenant, and that in the light of overwhelming evidence produced by Plaintiff to prove both relation as well as residence with deceased tenant-Dinamai, the Trial Court had rightly decreed the Suit and the Appellate Bench has committed gross error in reversing the decree of the Trial Court.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents argue that the case clearly involves an attempt to transmit the tenancy by the original tenant, Dinamai in favor of the appellant, between whom, there is no relationship and that his assertions of being her nephew are unsubstantiated. They contend that the appellant did not reside with Dinamai in the suit premises as claimed, asserting that he was living with his parents at Cusrow Baug, Colaba, until shortly before her death, and that his residence with Dinamai was not for a substantial period.
Further, the respondents challenge the authenticity of the documents presented by the appellant, such as the Ration Card, Will, Codicil, and affidavit, arguing that Will, Codicil and affidavit are created solely for the purpose of claiming relation and residence with Dinamai with a view to transmit tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises and the mere entry in the Ration Card cannot prove relation or residence of the appellant with the original tenant. That there was clear collusion between Dinamai and the appellant for ensuring transmission of tenancy rights in favor of Defendant. Additionally, no cogent evidence is produced to prove even the said relation.
They argue that the term “family” should not be interpreted broadly to include distant relatives like the appellant and references the judicial precedents that support a narrow interpretation of who qualifies as a family member under the relevant tenancy laws, arguing that the appellant does not meet these criteria.
JUDGMENT
The Court dismissed the civil revision application, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to tenancy rights in the suit premises stating that the appellant, Soli Behram Sukhadwala, failed to establish his claim as a tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. The civil application related to the revision was also disposed of as a result of this judgment.
The Court found that the appellant did not adequately prove his relationship with the original tenant, Dinamai. The appellant’s assertion that he resided with Dinamai since 1974 was deemed unconvincing as Defendant Nos.6 to 8, who filed separate written statements, denied both the relationship as well as residence of the appellant with Dinamai in the suit premises. They pleaded that the appellant was residing at Cusrow Baugh and came to the suit premises recently.
The Apex Court has held that apart from parents, spouse, brother, sisters, sons and daughter, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant’s family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that he/she always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court,reiterating that the intent of the Bombay Rent Act is to protect only those who have resided with the tenant as family members, and allowing the appellant’s claim would undermine this purpose.
ANALYSIS
The court’s finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence emphasizes the stringent standards required in tenancy claims. Thus, reflecting the court’s conservative method to evaluate evidence that may appear to be created with the ulterior motive of grabbing the suit premises.
Thus, this judgment proves that courts will scrutinize claims closely to ensure that the protections afforded by Bombay Rent Act are not misused.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in Soli Behram Sukhadwala v. Nitin D. Sohni and others serves as a significant acknowledgement of the principles governing tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act. By emphasizing the stringent burden of proof required to establish claims of tenancy, particularly for distant relatives, the court has reinforced the necessity for credible evidence and a clear demonstration of familial relationships. This ruling not only clarifies the standards for future claims but also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of tenancy protections.
Ultimately, the dismissal of the appellant’s claim ensures that the provisions of the law are applied fairly and consistently, preventing potential misuse by individuals who do not meet the established criteria for tenancy rights. This case sends quite a clear message for similar disputes, guiding future interpretations of familial relationships in the context of rent control laws.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20
years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of
best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best
criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: TEJASRI RAO
