Case: Durga Prasad Vs. Narayan Ramchandaani (D) Thr. Lrs

2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under :The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition before the Competent Authority/Civil Judge, (Senior Division) under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.P. Act XIII offor release of property from the tenant-Late Lalita Devi from the suit property bearing No.6/7, Amrit Kaur Road, (New Road), Dehradun on the ground of his bona fide need. Father-in-law of deceased Lalita Devi–Hem Ram Sharma had taken the suit property on rent and after his death his son Baldev (husband of Lalita) became the tenant of the suit property and after the death of Baldev, Lalita became the tenant of suit property. The appellant is the brother of deceased Lalita, who was the tenant of the respondent herein. The application was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2010 by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent-landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 before the appellate court which was transferred to Additional District Judge-VII, Dehradun. During the pendency of appeal, tenant-Lalita Devi passed away on 06.07.2013. The respondent-landlord moved a substitution application before the appellate court with a prayer that the appellant, who is the real brother of deceased, be substituted in her place. The said application was allowed and the appellant was impleaded as a defendant/respondent in the said appeal. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal vide order dated 10.10.2014 holding that during the pendency of the appeal the sole tenant-Lalita passed away and Durga Prasad, who has been substituted is not a member of theand that he has not been able to prove that he was previously residing with his sister Lalita in the said premises. On those findings the appellate court set aside the order of the prescribed authority and allowed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant-tenant preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2015, holding that the appellant does not come within the definition ofas per Section 3(g) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The High Court further held that vacancy was liable to be declared on the demised premises, on the death of sole tenant– Lalita, the review application filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2015. Both the orders are impugned in these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
10. In the present case, we are dealing with the case as to who would becomeon the death of Lalita. Hence, the definition ofis not relevant for the purposes of determining as to who would become tenant on the death of tenant Lalita. The only question falling for consideration is whether the appellant-brother of the tenant Lalita is anunder Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.is not defined in the Act.is a person who inherits or may inherit by law. Section 3(1)(f) of the Hindu Succession Act definesmeans any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under thishas to be given the same meaning as would be applicable to the general law of succession. In the present case, as pointed out by the High Court, the deceased tenant-Lalita being a hindu female, the devolution of tenancy will be determined under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.In the present case, the suit property was taken on rent by the father-in-law of deceased tenant-Lalita that is Hem Ram Sharma and after his death, his son Baldev (husband of Lalita) became tenant of the suit property. Upon his death, Lalita became the tenant of the suit property. Upon death of Lalita, in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, in the absence of any son or daughter of deceased Lalita, the tenancy would devolve upon the heirs of her husband. Since the appellant does not fall under the category ofhusband, the tenancy of the suit property will not devolve on him nor can he be called as anunder Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.Assuming, for the sake of arguments that the appellant is an heir of Lalita, for devolution of tenancy, on the death of Lalita, the appellant has to be awithin the meaning of Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. As per Section 3(a)(1), in the case of residential building, in the event of death of a tenant, for heirs to be treated as tenant, the statute requires them to prove that they have been normally residing with the deceased tenant at the time of his/her death. The term used in the section iswhich implies that not any of the family member residing with the tenant would succeed to the tenancy, but only the heirs of tenant normally residing with him/her. The wordssuggests that only those heirs would inherit the tenancy rights of deceased tenant who resided with him ordinarily in normal course and not temporarily. The legislative intent appears to be that only those heirs would inherit tenancy who normally resided with the tenant and not occasionally. In the present case, the appellant claims that he has been carrying on business in the property along with his deceased sister Lalita and had been ordinarily living with her because of the medical business they were running. The appellant being the brother of deceased-Lalita had no reason to normally reside with his married sister. Be it noted, in her written statement filed in the release application, Lalita has not averred that her brother-appellant Durga Prasad was living with her and that he was taking care of her. As rightly held by the Courts below, Durga Prasad is neither awithin the meaning of Section 3(a) nor fall under the definition ofas per Section 3(g) of the Act.Upon appreciation of the facts and evidence, the first appellate court and the High Court rightly held that the appellant is neither anas visualized under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 norwithin the meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act and that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises and is liable to be evicted. The High Court has directed the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 on the release application of the landlord without further delay preferably within three weeks from the date of judgment of the High Court that is 09.03.2015. Father-in-law of Lalita had taken the suit premises on rent in the year 1940. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without relegating the matter to the District Magistrate to pass orders on the release application of the respondent-landlord, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord.