Holding

The appellant is neither a tenant nor an heir under the Act and therefore cannot claim tenancy rights; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Naubat Singh was the tenant of a shop in Bulandshahr when the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force. After his death in 1974, landlord Ratan Lal sought eviction under the Act. Jaspal Singh, the nephew of the deceased, claimed he was an heir under a will and that he was entitled to the tenancy rights by virtue of sections 14 (both the original and the 1976‑amended version) of the Act. The Rent Control Officer and the Additional District Judge held that he could claim the benefit of the amended section 14, but the Allahabad High Court reversed, finding that (i) the appellant could not satisfy the consent‑of‑landlord requirement for either version of section 14, (ii) he was not an “heir” within the meaning of section 3(a) because he was not a member of the family defined in section 3(g), and (iii) tenancy rights could not be devised by will. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view, holding that the appellant was neither a tenant nor an heir and dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the unamended section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the amended section 14 (1976 amendment).
Whether the appellant qualifies as an ‘heir’ of the deceased tenant within the meaning of section 3(a).
Whether tenancy rights under the Act can be transferred or devised by a will.
Interpretation of ‘family’ under section 3(g) for the purpose of determining heirs.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 11, s. 12, s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 20, s. 3(a), s. 3(g), s. 7A
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976s. 14

Subjects

tenancy rightsheirshipwillurban buildings actregularisation of occupationevictionlandlord‑tenant lawsuccessionstatutory interpretation

Judgment

889
r.... ' ,

JASPAL SINGH

v.

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR
AND ORS.

September 28, 1984 B

(E. S: VENKATARAMIAI! AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.]

U,P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 11£nt and Eviction) Act, 1971,
JS. 3(a), J(g), II, 13, 14 and IS-Whether tenancy rightJ can be devised by a
.. w;1r·
c
Word.rand Phrases-"'heir""-Meanlng of..
I
. Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act (For short, the Act) as it stood prior to its amendn1ent in 1976 and
also after its amendment by the U.P. Act No. 28 or 1976 deals with regulari·
sation of occupation of existing tenants. The unamended section 14 of the Act
provided that a person mu~t satisfy twO conditions in order to set the benefit of
'this section, namely. (i) that he was a tenant in occupation of a building with the ·
D
t
consent of the landlord imrne.:fiately before the commencement of this Act and
(ii) that he was not a person against whom proceedings under section 7A of the
old Act are pendina immediately before such commencement.· The amended
section 14 of the Act lays down that a person Shall be deemed to be an authori·
sed licen!ec or tenant. of building . if (i} any licensee or tenant is ·in occupation
of a building with the Consent of the landlord immCdiately before the commenCe..
ment of, the Act as amended by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and (ii) that he
was not a i;erson against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending
E
before any court or authority on the date of such commencement. Section J(a)
of the Act provides that a tenant in relation to a building means a person by
whom its fent i!i payable, and on the tenant's death, in the case of a non-re~i·
dential building, his heirs.

On the death of Naubat Singh-a tenant in a shop situated in Buland·
shahr, the landlord started eviction proceCdings u/s. 12 read with s. 16 of the F
Act for the release of his shop. The appellant. a nephew of the deceased tenant,
resisted the eviction application on the grounds : (i) that he was entitled to get
the benefit of the amended and/or unamended seCtion 14 of the Act since hehad
been helpin!;. the deceased tenant in his business for the last several years and
remained in continuous possession of the disputed shop after his deat~ and
(2) that he was an heir of the deceased tenant on the basis of a will executed by
the deceased tenant in his favour and therefore he was a tenant within the
[!leaning or section 3(a) of tho Act.
G
890 SuPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 1 S.C.R·

• The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application holding
that the appellant was entitled to get the tenancy rights under the unan1ended
s. 14 of the Act. In revision the Additional District Judge held that, since even
after the death of Naubat Singh on 31st August 1974, the appellant had been
permitted to continue in possession of the premises, he got the benefit of amend·
ed s. 14 of the Act and therefore dismissed the revision petition Thereupon the
landlord filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court against the
orders of the two authorities below. The High Court negatived all the conten·
tions of the appellants, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the
authorities below and directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide
the release application afresh in accordance with the law. Hence this appeal by
special leave.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : (I) Admittedly Naubat Singh was the tenant of the shop on the
date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, that is, 15th July
1972 and he was alive and therefore no question of the appeUant being regulari-
sed as a tenant arises. T11e appellant also could not get the benefit of amended
sec. 14, since at the relevant time the application for release filed by the landlord
against the appellant was pending in the court of Additional District Judge by
way of revision petition wherein the landlord had contested the claim of tenancy
by appellant. [893 H; 894 B-C]

(2) The word 'heir' bas been construed both in a wider as well as in a
narrower sense. Which sense will be applicable to the facts of a particular case
will depend upon the intention and scheme of a particular legislation in which
the question occurs. [89' G]

Smt. Rukmani Devi v. III Addi. District Judge, Kanpur (I) 1977 ARC 72
and Munni Lal v. Smt. Shiva Devi 1981 ARC (S.N. 13); referred to

Gulzara Singh v. Smt. Te) Kaur, AIR 1961 Punjab 288, approved.

(3) It is clear from a survey of ss 3(g), II, 12, 13 and 15 of the Act that
there are restrictions placed by the Act on the right of the tenant to transfer or
sublet the tenancy rights and he can keep possession of the building or premises
for himself and for the purpose of his family, for his business and for tbe busi-
ness of his family members. He obviously cannot be allowed to transfer a
tenancy right. A fortiori, the scheme of the Act does not warrant the transfer of
the tenancy right to be effective after his lifetime. [897 G-H)

(4) In the instant case, the appellant was neither a tenant of the disputed
shop nor he was an heir of the deceased tenant since he is not a member of the
'' family of the deceased tenant as de.fined u/s. 3(g} of the Act. Besides, on a plain
reading of the will it is evident that the will has been executed in respect of other
properties including his Pusiness but not in respect of the tenancy right. There-
fore, this Court sees no reason to differ from the finding of the High Court.
[891 A-BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1275 of 1979.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judllment and Order datecl
JASPAL SINGH v. DISTT. JUDGE (Misra J.) 891

the 27th March, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. A
Writ No. 1416 of 1977.

Mr. E.C. Agarwa/a, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. J.P. Goyal, Mr. S. K. Jain and Mr. Rajesh, for the B
Respondent.

The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave against the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 27th of March, 1979 C
centres round a shop No. 270 situate in Groucegauj, Bulandshahr.
This shop was owned by Ratan Lal and Naubat. Singh was a tenant
of the shop: Nabuat Singh died on 31st of August, 1~74. He had no
male issue but had four daughters, all of whom were married and
were residing with their husbands outside Bulandshahr. He also left
behind his widow who was residing in village Rampur, district
Bulandshahr. He was carrying on some business in the disputed shop D
during his lifetime. On his death Ratan Lal, the landlord, filed an
application under s. 12 read withs. 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (for short,
referred to hereinafter as 'the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972') for a declara-
tion that the shop was vacant and he required the same for his
personal need. E

• The application was resisted by Jaspal Singh, the present
i. appellant, ,on the ground that he was the heir of N aubat Singh dec-
eased and ".was in occupation of the disputed shop; that on 4th of
July 1973 Naubat Singh before his death executed a will conveying all
F
his rights and properties including the tenancy rights in the disputed
shop to him; that he had been helping Naubat Singh in his busines s
for the last several years and remained in continuous possession of
the disputed shop after the death of Naubt Singh and so he was
entitled to get the benefit of s.14 of, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
G
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application
holding that Jaspal Singh the, appellant, bad been living with the
deceased Naubat Singh and was also assisting him in doing the
business in the disputed premises to the full knowledge of the land-
lord, and so be was entitled to get the tenancy rigb.ts under s. 14 of
th' U.P. Aot No. 13 o: Ul2, a; it s!oJ1 prior to its am,Jdn,,1t
made by U.P. A,ct No.28 of l~7q, ff
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ]1985] l S.C.R.

A' Feeling aggrieved the landlord preferred a revision before the
District Judge, Bulandshahr, which was transferred to the Additional
District Judge, who dismissed the same on 8th of July, 1976. He,
however, did not agree with the finding of the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer that Jaspal Singh was entitled to the benefit of
originals. 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but since even after the
B death of Nauhat Singh, on 31st of August 1974 Jaspal Singh bad been
permitted to continue in possession of the premises be got the benefit
of amended s. 14, as amended by U.P. Act No.28 of 1976.

Undaunted by bis failures, the landlord filed a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the two autho-
rities below. The High Court endorsed the finding of the Additional·
District Judge that Jaspal Singh could not get the benefit of the
unamended s. 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inasmuch as on the
date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, i.e., on
14th July, 1972 Naubat Singh was very much alive and admittedly
he was the 'tenant of the premises in question and as such no ques-
D tion of regularisation of Jaspal Singh as tenant could arise. The
High Court also held that Jaspal Singh was not even entitled to get
the benefit of the amended s. 14 as it stood amended by the U.P. Act
No.28 of 1976, which came into force on 5th of July, 1976. According
to the High Court the benefit of amended s. 14 would be available to
Jaspal Singh, the appellant, only when he was living in the premises
E with the consent of the landlord provided that no proceedings for
his eviction were pending. The landlord, however, in the instant case
immediately after the death of Naubat Singh started the procee-
dings for the release of the premises in 1974. The High Court took
exception to the assumption of the learned Additional District
Judge regarding the consent of the landlord. According to the High
F Court consent of the landlord cannot be assumed or presumed, it
must be proved as a fact but there was no proof of the consent of
the landlord. The High Court after construing the scheme and the
various provisions of the Act also held that the appellant could not
be an heir on the basis of the will executed by Naubat Singh nor could
Naubat Singh execute any will in respect of the tenancy rights. On
G these findings the High Court held the possession of Jaspal Singh to be
unauthorised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition
and quashed the orders of the authorities below and directed •.he Rent
Control and Eviction Officer to decide the release application afresh in
accordance with the law. Jaspal Singh has now approached this
Court by •special leave, and the counsel for the appellant has
H reiterated the same pointa before us.
iASl>AL SINGH v. DISTT. JUDGE (Misra, J.) 893

The first question which calls for consideration is whether :A
Jaspal Singh, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the unamended
and amended s. 14 of the rent Act. It would be appropriate at this
stage to read the old unamended and amended s.14 of the Act.
Section 14 as it stood originally in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read :

B
"14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in an} general order
made under sub-section (2) of section 7 of the old Act, any
tenant in occupation of a buliding with the consent of the
landlord immediately before the commencement of this
Act, not being a person against whom proceedings un~er
section 7-A of the old Act are pending immediately before c
such commencement, shall be deemed to be in authorised
occupation of such building.

Section 14 of the Act as amended by the U.P. Act No. 28 of
1976 reads :
'D
"14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the
meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a
building with the consent of the landlord immediately E
.}_ before the cmomencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction
Amendment) Act, 1976 not being a person against whom
any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before . any
court or authority on the date of such commencement shall .
be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such F
building."

A bare perusal of s. 14 as it stood prior to its amendment in
1976 would indicate that in order to get the benefit of this section a
person must satisfy that (1) he was a tenant in occupation of a buil-
ding with the consent of the landlord immediately before the com-
mencement of this Act and that he was not a person againsi whom G
proceedings under s. 7A of the old Act are pending immediately
before such commencement, i.e., on 14th July, 1972 (date of com-
mencement of the Act being 15 July, 1972). Admittedly Na:ubat
Singh was the tenant of the shop on the date immediately preceding
the commencement of the Act (i.e., 15th July, 1972) and he was alive
894 SUPRllME COURT REPORTS [1985) I s.c.11..
A and therefore no question of Jaspal Singh being regularised as a
tenant arises.

In order to attract s. 14 as it stood after the amendment in
1979, Jaspal Singh had to prove that he was a licensee or a tenant
with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commence-
B ment of the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 which came into force on 5th
July, 1976. At the relevant time, however, the application for release
filed by the landlord against Jaspal Singh was pending in court of
Additional District Judge by way of revision petition wherein the
landlord Ratan Lal had contested the claim of tenancy by Jaspal
Singh. The appellant, therefore, could not get the benefit of amended
c s. 14 as well and the High Court was right in so holding.

This leads us to the next contention that the appellant is a
lenant within the meaning of s. 3(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 :

"3. In this Act, unless the context otherwise require-
D (a) "tenant" in relation to a building, means a person by
whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death-

(!) in the case of a residential building, such only of
his heirs as normally resided with him in the buil-
ding at the time of his death;
E
(2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs;"

The appellant would be a tenant within the meaning of s. 3 (a)
only when he is an heir. The appellant is not a son but only a nephew
of Nauba:t Singh. He, however, claims to be an heir on the basis of
F a will executed by Naubat Singh conveying all his rights and pro-
perties including the tenancy rights in respect of the disputed shop in
his favour and that he had been helping Nau bat Singh in his business
for the last several years and continued to remain in possession of the
shop even after the death of Naubat Singh. Accordingly he was
entitled to the benefit of s. 14. We have already dealt with the
G
question whether tqe appellant was entitled to the benefit of s. 14 as
it stood prior to its amendment in 1976 and also of the amended
provisions of s. 14 and we have negatived the contention of the appel-
lant. Therefore, the precise question for consideration would be
whether the appellant is an heir within the meaning of s. 3(a) on the
basis of the will executed in his favour by Nau bat Singh. There
H seems to be a cleavage of opinion on this point in various High
iASPAL siNGH v. oisri. JUnGE (Misra j_) 895
Courts. The Allah? bad High Court in Smt. Rukmani Devi v. III Addi. A
District Judge, Kanpurlll and Munni Lal v. Smt. Shiva Devi 1'>. held
that the question as to who are heirs of the deceased tenant, · wi'u be
decided in accordance with the personal Jaw of the tenant, as this Act

•
does not Jay dov.n the list of heirs on whom the tenancy should
devolve. In some of the Rent Control Acts list of the heirs .has been ..B
specified for the purpose of devolution of tenancy on the death of the
.tenant. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Gu/zara Singh v. Smt. Tej Kaur 131 on the other.hand held: ·

"Generally speaking 'heirs' are those persons whom the·
·y law declares to be entitled to the estate of a deceased person, • c
and in common legal parlance the word .'heir' like the ex-
pression 'heir at law' undoubtedly connotes and is suggestive.
of a person who succeeds to the estate in case of intestacy
under the ·statutes of succession. But in common speech
this word is also not infrequently used to indicate those who
come in any manner ·to the ownership of any. property by ,,
reason of the death of the owner or persons upon whom the D
property devolves on the death of another either by Jaw or
by will." 11

In other words, it is indicative of persons entitled by
will or otherwise to share the estate of the deceased. It is 'E
thus true that technically the word 'heir' may be distinguish-
able from the word 'legatee' but it is also at times used in
its more general and comprehensive sense as indicating the
person upon whom the property devolves on the death of
another and hence when the intent is clear the word 'heir'
may well be treated as equivalent to 'Legatee' or devised'. F
The true scope, effect and significance of this word is, there-
fore, in all cases a question of intention which bas to be
determined principally on a ~onsideration of the objection
and purpose of the statute.in which it is nsed."

Thus, the word 'heir' has been construed both in a wider as well
as in a· narrower sense. Which sense will be applicable to the facts
. G
of a particular case will depend upon the intention and scheme of a "
particular legi$Jation in which the question occurs. This will also

(I) 1977 ARC Vl
. i
(2) 1981 ARC (S. N. U)
(3) .l.1,R.1961 Pb. 281 ll
896 si.JPRilMil COuRT REPORTS [1985j 1 s.c.I!..
A raise an allied question whether the tenancy rights could be devised
by a will. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to material
provisions of the Act.

The word 'family' bas been defined in s. 3(g) of the Act :
B
(g) "family" in relation to a landlord or tenant of a build-
ing, means, his or her-

(i) spouse,

(ii) male lineal descendants,
c (iii) such parents, grand parents and any unmarried or
widowed or divorced or judicially separated daugh-
ter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may
have been normally residing with him or her,

D and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female,
having a legal right of residence in that building;"

Section 11 deals with the prohibition of letting without allot-
ment order. It reads :

E "Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall let any . {.
building except in pursuance of an allotment order iss11cd
under Section 16."

Section 12 deals with a deemed vacancy of building in certain
cases and reads :
F
"(I) A landlord or a tenant of a building shall be deemed to
have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof
if-

(a) he bas substantially removed his effects therefrom,
or
G
(b) he bas allowed it to be occupied by any person who
is not a member of ~is family, or

(c) in the case of a residential building, be as well as
members of hi• family have taken up residence, not
beinz temporary residence, elsewhere.
iASPAL SINGH v. DISTT. JUDGE (Misra J.) 897

(2) In the case of non-residential building, where a tenant A
carrying on business in the building admits a person
who is not a member of his family as a partner or a
new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be
deemed to have ceased to occupy the building."

Section 13 provides for restrictions on occupation of building B
without allotment or release, and reads :

"Where a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a buil-
ing or part thereof, no person shall occupy it in any capa-
city on his behalf, or otherwise then under an order of
allotment or release under Section 16, and if a person so
purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the c
provisions of Section 31, be deemed to be an unauthorised
occupant of such building or part."

Section 15 casts an obligation on the landlord or the tenant to
intimate vacancy to the District Magistrate. Section 16 deals with
D
allotment and release of a vacant building. Section 20 puts a bar
of snit for eviction of a tenant except on specified grounds enume-
rated therein.

From a survey of these provisions it will be clear that if a
tenant parts with possession o( the premises in his possession, the E
same would be treated as vacant. There are restrictions in the case
of a residential building that the tenant will live only with the
members of bis family and after he has allowed the same to be
occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, the
tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. Jn
the case of a non-residential buiiding, when a tenant is carrying on F
business in the building, admits a person who is not a member of his
family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant
shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. If a tenant
sublets the premises, he is liable to ajectment. Obviously, therefore,
there are restrictions placed by the Act on the. right of the tenant to
transfer or sublet the tenancy rights and he can keep possession of
the building or premises for himself and for the purpose of his family, G
for his business and for the business of his family members. He
obviously, cannot be allowed to transfer a tenancy right. A fortiori,
the scheme of the Act does not warrant the transfer of the tenancy
right to be effective after his lifetime. Thus, the appellant was neither
a tenant of the disputed shop nor he v.as an heir ofNanbat Sin&h, the
H
898 SuPREMB COURT REPORTS il985] I s.c.ii..

A original tenant. Besides, on a plain reading of the will it is evident
that the will has been executed in respect of other properties including
his business but not in respect of the tenancy rights. The High Court
also recorded a finding to the effect that there was no will in respect
of the tenancy rights of the disputed shop.

B Having given our anxious consideration to the questions invol·
ved in the case we see no reason to differ from the finding of the High
Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances
of the case the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.

M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.

.-