DURGA PRASAD versus NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS.

DURGA PRASAD versus NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS.

The appellant, being the brother of the deceased lady tenant, does not fall under the definitions of 'heir' or 'family' as visualized under Section 3(a) and 3(g) of the UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972, nor under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Tenancy does not devolve upon him; he remains an unauthorized occupant and is liable to be evicted.

Parties
Appellant: Durga Prasad; Respondent: Narayan Ramchandaani (D) through LRs
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order (writ and Review)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Definition of Tenant and Family, Devolution of Tenancy, Heirship Under Hindu Succession Act
Rent Control Tenancy Law Succession Law Eviction Definition of Tenant and Family Devolution of Tenancy Heirship Under Hindu Succession Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durga Prasad

Appellant

Narayan Ramchandaani (D) through LRs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order (writ and Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the brother of a deceased lady tenant included in the definition of 'heir' or 'family' under Section 3(a) and 3(g) of the UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972?
  2. 2 Does the tenancy devolve upon the brother in absence of son or daughter of the deceased tenant under Hindu Succession Act?
  3. 3 Does mere substitution of the brother for deceased tenant make him an eligible tenant under the Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, being the brother of the deceased lady tenant, does not fall under the definitions of 'heir' or 'family' as visualized under Section 3(a) and 3(g) of the UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972, nor under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Tenancy does not devolve upon him; he remains an unauthorized occupant and is liable to be evicted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord within four weeks from the date of order.
  • Failure to comply will make appellant liable for contempt of court.