‘Married daughter can evict tenants’

Any female, whether married or not, with a legal right of residence in a building, shall also be included in the definition of “family” of the landlord, and may choose to seek the eviction of tenants

Update: 2016-09-29 20:20 GMT

Any female, whether married or not, with a legal right of residence in a building, shall also be included in the definition of “family” of the landlord, and may choose to seek the eviction of tenants if the premises are required for bonafide use, the Supreme Court has said.

Giving this ruling, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and A.M. Sapre said that in order to claim the benefit of the expression “family”, a person must have a “legal right of residence” in the building.

The bench held that whether she is married or not, if she is able to show that she has an interest in the said building, it will entitle her to claim a right of residence in the building. She would then be entitled to seek the eviction of tenants from such building for her personal use.

The bench, ruling on an appeal filed by Gulshera Khanam to allow her daughter Naheed Parveen to use a part of a building that belonged to her late husband and is currently occupied by tenants, said that since the daughter, Ms Parveen, inherited an undivided but specific ownership right in the suit building, it entitles her to claim a right of residence in the building.

The Allahabad high court had rejected Gulshera Khanam’s petition, to evict the tenants so that her daughter could use the building, on the grounds that Ms Parveen could not be included in the definiton of “family” because she is a married woman.

The SC bench, allowing the appeal, said that Ms Parveen’s claim cannot be considered unjust or unreasonable.

It is for the reasons that, firstly, the suit shop No. 6 is adjacent to shop No. 7 and secondly, the need for expansion of a clinic could be accomplished effectively only with the use of the two shops, which are adjacent to each other.

The Bench said it is a well settled principle laid down by this Court in rent matters that the landlord is the sole judge to decide as to how much space is needed for him/her to start or expand any of his/her activity. This principle was overlooked by the High Court while deciding the issue of need.

Similar News