Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by Will; "family" status under Rent Act requires blood or marital relationship.

The respondents (owners) filed a suit in the City Civil Court in 1985 seeking a mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of Flat No. 5, Shankar Bhavan, Mumbai, from the appellants, alleging they were trespassers

The original tenant, P.S. Athwankar, died on August 23, 1985

The owners contended that the appellants were domestic servants permitted to reside in the flat during the tenant's lifetime and had no independent legal right to remain after his death

The appellants resisted the suit, claiming they were "members of the tenant’s family" and "heirs" under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, asserting that the first appellant had lived with the tenant since 1948 (from age seven) and was treated like a son

They also relied on a Will executed by the tenant bequeathing the tenancy rights to them

The Trial Court dismissed the owners' suit, but a Single Judge of the High Court reversed this decision in 2002, declaring the appellants as trespassers

The Court primarily interpreted Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, which defines a "tenant" to include family members residing with the tenant at the time of death or, in their absence, the tenant's heirs

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vasant Pratap Pandit v. Dr. Anant T. Sabnis (1994) 3 SCC 481, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Dr. Anant T. Sabnis v. Vasant Pratap Pandit AIR 1980 Bom 69, which established that the term "heir" does not include a "legatee" and that Section 15 of the Rent Act prohibits the transfer of tenancy through a Will

It further applied the principle from Ross v. Collins (1964) 1 W.L.R. 425, holding that "family" requires a recognizable familial nexus (blood, marriage, or adoption) and excludes strangers, regardless of emotional bonds

Section 28 of the Rent Act was identified as the provision granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Causes Court for landlord-tenant disputes

The Court found that the appellants failed to satisfy the legal criteria for "family" or "heir."

It reasoned that "family" in the context of Section 5(11)(c) must be understood in its ordinary parlance, requiring a blood or marital relationship; a domestic servant or "foster son" lacks this essential familial nexus

Regarding the claim of being an "heir" via a Will, the Court followed Vasant Pratap Pandit, holding that the word "transfer" in Section 15 includes testamentary bequests, which are prohibited to prevent tenants from "thrusting uncontemplated strangers" upon landlords

The Court noted that if "heir" included legatees, any stranger could be inducted as a tenant, defeating the landlord’s property rights

On jurisdiction, the Court observed that while the Civil Court entertained the suit based on the "trespasser" plea in the plaint, the appellants never successfully established a tenancy in the appropriate forum (Small Causes Court)

Consequently, since the appellants were neither blood relatives nor legal heirs, their occupation post the tenant’s death was unauthorized

It held that a legatee under a Will is not an "heir" or "family member" within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, and tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed

The appellants were declared trespassers and ordered to vacate the suit premises within eight weeks