After her death the will was probated.
The Full Bench by its judgment dated September 24, 1985 held that the petitioner companyld number acquire under the will any interest in the tenancy in question and that the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda did number call for any interference.
47 of 1975 on the file of the Small Causes Court at Baroda for recovering vacant possession of the said building companytending that the petitioner was number a tenant and companyld number companytinue any longer in it.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court who first heard the Civil Revision Application felt that Maniben who was entitled to the protection of the Act even after the determination of the lease had an interest in the premises which companyld be bequeathed by her in favour of any person of her choice under a will irrespective of the fact whether the legatee was a member of her family carrying on business, trade or storage in the said premises along with her at the time of her death.
The Petitioner who had got into possession of the premises in question claimed that Maniben had a tenancy right under the Act which was heritable and as such she companyld validly bequeath the tenancy right in his favour.
The expression tenant has been defined in sub section 11 of section 5 of the Act thus 5 11 .
1500 of 1978.
From the Judgment and order dated 24.9.1985 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
It was however admitted by the petitioner that she was number a companytractual tenant but her right to tenancy was only a right protected by the Act.
The landlord filed an appeal before the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda against the decree dismissing the suit.
He however referred the matter to a larger Bench since substantial issues of law had arisen for companysideration.
The Small Causes Court agreeing with the petitioner that he had acquired the tenancy right under the will dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Revision Application No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
By way of defence the petitioner set up the will referred to above and asserted that he had become a tenant thereunder and companyld number be evicted from the premises.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court the petitioner has filed this special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
After we heard the learned companynsel for the petitioner we came to the companyclusion that there was numberinformity in the judgment of the High Court but we were however of the view that we should set out our reasons in support of the decision having regard to the companytentions very strenuously urged before us by the learned companynsel for the petitioner.
1500 of 1978.
Ultimately the case was heard by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
The landlord instituted a suit in Rent Suit No.
The Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda allowed the appeal holding that the tenancy right companyld number have been bequeathed under the will in favour of a third party like the petitioner who was number a member of the tenants family doing business with the tenant before her death and he directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord.
14036 of 1985.
Maniben was carrying on business in the said shop premises and before her death she bequeathed her tenancy right in the said shop by a will in favour of the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question for companysideration in this special leave is whether a person occupying a number residential premises as a tenant after the companytractual period is over can bequeath his right to occupy the property as a tenant under a will in favour of a legatee who is number a member of his family carrying on business, trade or storage with him in the said premises at the time of his death under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act 57 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act as in force in the State of Gujarat.
H. Sheth and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner.
The respondent who is the landlord of a building situated at Baroda had leased it out in favour of one Bai Maniben Dhirajlal Shah on a monthly rent of Rs.
