Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in Munshi Lal vs. Smt. Santosh, has observed that if a tenant enters into a partnership agreement with his son-in-law and allows him to occupy the tenanted premises, without obtaining the consent of the landlord, it cannot be said that there is no parting of possession. The high court in the instant case had upheld the view taken by the appellate authority, which had relied on Smt. Krishnawati Vs. Shri Hans Raj (1974) 1 SCC 289, in which it was held that in an arrangement where the premises was rented by the husband, and the wife was allowed to carry out business in a part of the premises, would not amount to subletting. “In this case, the relationship is not like that of a spouse being allowed to carry out a business in the same house. The relationship is of a son-in-law and father-in-law who had entered into a partnership agreement,” a bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao said. The court, referring to provisions of the Delhi Rent Contr...

Our conclusions are crystallised as under: (i) The words “for his own use” as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction. (ii) The expression — landlord requires for “his own use”, is not confined in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally. The requirement not only of the landlord himself but also of the normal “emanations” of the landlord is included therein. All the cases and circumstances in which actual physical occupation or user by someone else, would amount to occupation or user by the landlord himself, cannot be exhaustively enumerated. It will depend on a variety of factors such as interrelationship and interdependence — economic or otherwise, between the landlord and such person in the background of social, socio-religious and local customs and obligations of the society or region to which they belong. (iii) The te...

The bench of Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ held that the brother of a married female tenant is neither a ‘heir’ as visualized under Section 3(a) nor ‘family’ within the meaning of Section 3(g) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In the present case, the suit property was taken on rent by the father-in-law of deceased tenant and after his death, his son became tenant of the suit property. Upon his death, his wife i.e. the appellant’s sister became the tenant of the suit property. The Court noticed that the word ‘heir’ is not defined in the Act and hence, it has to be given the same meaning as would be applicable to the general law of succession. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the general order of succession to the property of a female intestate who dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and the exception carved out in Section 15(2)(b) provides for a special order of succession in case of property inher...

The Supreme Court in Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad, has held that any woman, married or unmarried, who has a legal right of residence in the building, is also included in the definition of “family” in relation to landlord, and is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her bonafide need. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had held that Section 3(g)(iii) of the of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, includes only an “unmarried daughter” and that the landlord cannot seek eviction for the need of her married daughter.  The court interpreted the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which defines “family” in relation to landlord or tenant of a building to include (1) spouse (2) male lineal descendants (3) such parents, grandparents, unmarried or widowed or divorced o...

A hiba of an undivided share in property which is capable of division is invalid. Exceptions to the rule are: where the gift is made by one co-heir to the other; where the gift is of share in a zamindari or taluka; where gift is of a share in freehold property in a large commercial town, and where gift is of share in a land company. While gift of immovable property is not complete unless the donor parts with the possession and donee enters into possession but if the property is in occupation of tenants, gift can be completed by delivery of title deed or by request to tenants to attorn to the donee or by mutation. Gift of property which is capable of division is irregular but can be perfected and rendered valid by subsequent partition or delivery. [Khursida Begum v. Mohd. Farooq, (2016) 4 SCC 549]

Awarding Rs 51.75 lakh to a married woman for the accidental death of her brother, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that legal heirs, even if not dependent on the deceased, are eligible for compensation. The claimant, Divya Alok Srivastav informed Thane MACT that on May 23, 2007, her brother 237-year-old brother Abhisek Kumar, who worked with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance and earned about Rs 4 lakh salary per year, had hired a taxi One Sai Network Agency and proceeded to Shirdi along with her parents to offer prayers. The next morning they were on way to Pune when car driver Sagar Vilas Lokhande, who was allegedly speeding, lost control over the vehicle which rammed into a tree at roadside. In the accident, the claimant’s father, mother, brother Abhishek and the taxi driver died on the spot. Divya alleged that the accident occurred due to the driver’s sole negligence, and that she was eligible for compensation for her brother’s death. The taxi owner did not contest...

Bombay High Court: While deciding the appeal preferred against the judgement of the Sessions Court, which denied the maintenance granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad,  M.S. Sonak J. modified the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and directed the respondent to pay  maintenance on monthly basis to the applicant with effect from 1 January 2015 thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Court. In the present case Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence on record does establish that the applicant was harassed and therefore compelled to live away from the respondent and the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the bounds of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the well reasoned decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. On the contrary counsel for the respondent Ms. Bhosale submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, upon proper appreciation of the material on record has rightly held that the Applicant...

The Supreme Court last week gave thumbs up to settlement of disputes against litigation among business family members when it ended three-decade row in the case, Rajni Sanghi vs Western Indian State Motors Ltd. The court ruled that if the parties settled their differences amicably, their agreement shall prevail though there were other proceedings like arbitration. Even if there is an arbitration award, which has not been made into a decree of the court, the family arrangement will override it. This was a case of partition of business among four branches of a family whose head died in 1961. Differences cropped up in the 1980s and there was litigation in three high courts with complicated questions of fact and law. There was also an arbitration award which was not made decree of the court. Meanwhile, the parties filed settlement deeds before the Bombay and Rajasthan high courts. The disputes continued over technical details. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the settlement arrived at ...

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a deceased victim’s family cannot strike a compromise with the accused on behalf of the dead. “Legal heirs of the deceased have entered into a compromise with the accused. It is inexplicable how they can be allowed to do so on behalf of a dead person. Possibility that they have acted under pressure or for some consideration cannot be ruled out,” Justice Rajan Gupta has asserted. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT                                              CHANDIGARH.                                                CRM-M-22257 of 2014                                           ...

Just because a man earns a high salary, it does not mean that the family is not dependent on a wife's salary, the Bombay high court has ruled. A division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Revati Dere directed New India Assurance to pay around Rs 47 lakh in compensation along with 7% interest to Sangli resident Sunil Garud (52) and his two young sons for the death of his wife in a car accident. The insurance company had opposed the claim as the husband, a government servant, was earning more than his wife, a professor in an engineering college, and therefore he was not dependent on her earnings. The HC said the company's contention that the husband of the deceased was earning and was not dependent on his wife's income, could not be accepted. "In this day and age, considering the cost of living, the income of both husband and wife are equally important for running the house as they supplement each other's income. It cannot be generally said that as the surviving sp...