Supreme Court settles the status of legal heirs as joint tenants in eviction cases: Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain (2018)

Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 334
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can a landlord proceed with eviction against some, but not all, legal heirs of a deceased tenant? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the status of legal heirs in tenancy matters. The Court held that legal heirs inherit tenancy rights as joint tenants, meaning that an eviction order against one heir is binding on all. This judgment has significant implications for landlords and tenants alike. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice R.K. Agrawal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a shop located in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The appellant, Suresh Kumar Kohli, is the owner of the shop. On November 15, 1975, Kohli’s father and another individual leased the shop to Ishwar Chand Jain (father of Respondent No. 1) and Ramesh Chand Jain (Respondent No. 2). The tenants ran a family business named M/s Rakesh Wool Store. Rakesh Jain (Respondent No. 1) became a partner in the business on April 2, 1979.

On April 25, 2009, the owner served a legal notice to Ramesh Chand Jain and Ishwar Chand Jain, terminating the tenancy effective May 31, 2009. Ishwar Chand Jain passed away on March 8, 2010. As the tenants failed to vacate, the owner filed an eviction petition on the grounds of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Additional Rent Controller decreed the eviction in favor of the owner on November 30, 2011.

Ramesh Chand Jain then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on May 8, 2012. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on August 17, 2012. Meanwhile, Rakesh Jain filed objections in the execution petition, claiming he was a necessary party as he had inherited rights in the joint family business and was unaware of the eviction proceedings. The Additional Rent Controller rejected his objections on June 8, 2012. Rakesh Jain then filed a petition before the High Court, which was allowed on December 5, 2013. The owner, Suresh Kumar Kohli, then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Rent Controller initially decreed the eviction petition in favor of the appellant (landlord). The High Court first dismissed the revision petition and the review petition filed by Respondent No. 2. However, the High Court later allowed the petition filed by Respondent No. 1, setting aside the Additional Rent Controller’s order that had rejected the objection petition filed by Respondent No. 1 in the execution proceedings. The High Court held that Respondent No. 1 was a necessary party to the eviction suit. This led to the appellant filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the term “tenant” under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and its interplay with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for his own use. Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, provides a special procedure for eviction of tenants in certain cases.

The High Court relied on Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states that if two or more heirs succeed to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. The Supreme Court, however, considered the definition of “tenant” under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and previous judgments to determine whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant become joint tenants or tenants-in-common.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
• Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that Respondent No. 2, being an heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant, adequately represented the estate. Therefore, the absence of Respondent No. 1 was not fatal to the eviction petition.
• The appellant contended that the original tenancy was a joint tenancy between the father and Respondent No. 2, and thus, an eviction suit against one joint tenant was valid. The death of one joint tenant does not change this.
• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in applying the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, instead of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which is a special act. The definition of “tenant” in the Rent Act should prevail.
• The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77, Mohd. Usman vs. (Mst.) Surayya Begum (1990) 2 RCR (Rent) 408, Mst. Surayya Begum vs. Mohd. Usman and Others (1991) 3 SCC 114, and Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Others (1995) 1 SCC 537, to support their claim that legal heirs of a tenant become joint tenants.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, stipulates that legal heirs hold tenancy rights as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants.
• The respondents claimed that the appellant acted in a clandestine manner to undermine the interest of Respondent No. 1, and the High Court was right to direct his impleadment in the eviction petition.
• The respondents relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Boddu Venkatakrishna Rao and Others vs. Smt. Boddu Satyavathi and Others AIR 1968 SC 751, Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others (1985) 2 SCC 683, and Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and Others (2016) 4 SCC 68, to support their contention that the legal heirs of a tenant become tenants-in-common.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument is innovative in that it emphasizes the special nature of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and its specific definition of “tenant,” which should take precedence over the general inheritance provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This highlights a potential conflict between general and special laws.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant will be of joint tenants or of tenants-in-common.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Boddu Venkatakrishna Rao and Others vs. Smt. Boddu Satyavathi and Others AIR 1968 SC 751 – The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to highlight that the principle of joint tenancy is generally not applicable under Hindu law, except in the case of coparcenary.
• Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others (1985) 2 SCC 683 – The Supreme Court of India discussed the differential treatment of commercial and residential tenancies under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and held that the heirs of a deceased tenant of commercial premises continue to enjoy the protection afforded to the tenant under the Act.
• H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 – The Supreme Court of India held that the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant as joint tenants.
• Mohd. Usman vs. (Mst.) Surayya Begum (1990) 2 RCR (Rent) 408 – The High Court of Delhi held that the heirs of a deceased tenant succeed to the right of tenancy as joint tenants, even if Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides otherwise.
• Mst. Surayya Begum vs. Mohd. Usman and Others (1991) 3 SCC 114 – The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the heirs of a tenant succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants and that the relationship between the stranger (landlord) and the heirs of a deceased tenant is not the subject matter of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Others (1995) 1 SCC 537 – The Supreme Court of India held that the heirs of a deceased tenant become joint tenants and that the Act should be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to an absurd situation.
• Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and Others (2016) 4 SCC 68 – The Supreme Court of India discussed the mode of succession of two or more heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and clarified that they take the property as tenants-in-common among themselves.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – These sections relate to the grounds and procedures for eviction of tenants.
• Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – This section deals with the mode of succession of two or more heirs, stating they take property as tenants-in-common.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul [CITATION], Mohd. Usman vs. (Mst.) Surayya Begum [CITATION], Mst. Surayya Begum vs. Mohd. Usman and Others [CITATION], and Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Others [CITATION] to establish that the legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit the tenancy as joint tenants.
• The Court distinguished the applicability of Boddu Venkatakrishna Rao and Others vs. Smt. Boddu Satyavathi and Others [CITATION], Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others [CITATION], and Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and Others [CITATION], stating that these cases did not apply to the specific context of tenancy rights under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain consistency in the interpretation of tenancy laws and to avoid creating absurd situations. The Court emphasized that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a special act designed to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants. The Court also noted that the concept of joint tenancy ensures that the tenancy remains a single, indivisible entity, and that the occupation of one joint tenant is considered the occupation of all.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the following:

• The need to prevent tenants from using technicalities to delay eviction proceedings.
• The principle that the death of a tenant should not create new rights for the heirs that were not enjoyed by the original tenant.
• The importance of ensuring that landlords are not unduly burdened by the need to implead all legal heirs of a deceased tenant.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the heirs should be tenants-in-common under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the previous judgments of the Supreme Court on tenancy rights should prevail. The Court reasoned that if the heirs were considered tenants-in-common, it would create a situation where the landlord would have to pursue eviction against each heir separately, which would be impractical and would frustrate the purpose of the Rent Act.

The Court held that the legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. This means that the occupation of one joint tenant is considered the occupation of all, and an eviction order against one joint tenant is binding on all. The Court reasoned that this interpretation is consistent with previous judgments and the purpose of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court also noted that the legal heirs of a deceased tenant cannot claim rights that were not enjoyed by the original tenant.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a special act and its provisions should prevail over the general provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The concept of joint tenancy ensures that the tenancy remains a single, indivisible entity.
• The occupation of one joint tenant is considered the occupation of all.
• An eviction order against one joint tenant is binding on all.
• The legal heirs of a deceased tenant cannot claim rights that were not enjoyed by the original tenant.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs.”

“In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants.”

“An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit tenancy rights as joint tenants, not as tenants-in-common.
• An eviction order against one joint tenant is binding on all joint tenants.
• Landlords are not required to implead all legal heirs of a deceased tenant in eviction proceedings.
• The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a special act that prevails over the general provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in matters of tenancy.
• This judgment clarifies the legal position on the status of legal heirs in tenancy matters and provides guidance for landlords and tenants.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restored the order of the Additional Rent Controller, which had decreed the eviction petition in favor of the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit the tenancy as joint tenants, and an eviction order against one joint tenant is binding on all. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in previous Supreme Court decisions, such as H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul, and clarifies that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd situations and ensures the efficient resolution of tenancy disputes. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reaffirmation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain clarifies that the legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit tenancy rights as joint tenants. This means that an eviction order against one joint tenant is binding on all, and landlords are not required to implead all legal heirs in eviction proceedings. The Court’s decision reinforces the special nature of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and its precedence over the general provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in matters of tenancy. This judgment provides important guidance for landlords and tenants, ensuring a more efficient and consistent approach to tenancy disputes.

Category

Parent Category: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Child Categories:

• Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
• Section 25-B, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
• Tenancy Rights
• Joint Tenancy
• Eviction
• Legal Heirs

Parent Category: Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Child Categories:

• Section 19, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Tenants-in-Common

FAQ

Q: What does it mean for legal heirs to inherit tenancy as joint tenants?

A: It means that all legal heirs collectively hold the tenancy rights. An eviction notice or order served to one heir is considered served to all, and all heirs are bound by the order.

Q: Do landlords need to include all legal heirs in an eviction case?

A: No, landlords are not required to include all legal heirs of a deceased tenant. Impleading one of the joint tenants is sufficient for the eviction proceedings.

Q: What happens if one of the legal heirs is not aware of the eviction proceedings?

A: Since the tenancy is considered joint, a notice served to one heir is deemed to be notice to all. Therefore, all legal heirs are bound by the outcome of the eviction proceedings, even if they were not individually aware.

Q: Does the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to tenancy rights?

A: While the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, generally provides that heirs inherit property as tenants-in-common, the Supreme Court has clarified that tenancy rightsare governed by the specific provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which treats legal heirs as joint tenants.

Q: Can legal heirs claim rights that were not enjoyed by the original tenant?

A: No, legal heirs cannot claim rights that were not enjoyed by the original tenant. They inherit the tenancy with the same terms and conditions as the original tenant.