The subject premises are said to be residential premises. One of the essential conditions to be tenant after the tenant's death in the case of residential building is that such person must be heir of the deceased tenant. = The parties are admittedly governed by Hindu law. The applicant's father, who is respondent No. 2, is alive. In other words, the deceased tenant is survived by his son - Jitendra Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 2). Since the applicant (respondent No. 1) is not a son of pre-deceased son, he is not a heir of his deceased grand-father under Section 8 read with the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act. The High Court clearly erred in not taking into consideration the first requirement of the definition of 'tenant' whether or not the applicant was the heir of the deceased tenant. As noted above, the applicant is not a heir of deceased tenant and, therefore, he cannot be held to be a joint tenant along with respondent No. 2 in the subject premises. 8. Appeal is allowed accordingly. The impugned order of the High Court dated May 11, 2011 is set aside and the order dated March 9, 2011 passed by the prescribed authority is restored. 9. The prescribed authority is requested to decide the eviction proceedings as expeditiously as may be possible. 10. No costs.

' 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3956 OF 2013
(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20826 of 2011)


SURAJ PRAKASH GULATI & ANR. Appellant(s)


VERSUS


PANKAJ GUPTA & ANR. Respondent(s)


O R D E R


Leave granted.


2. Respondent No. 1 - Pankaj Gupta - made an application in
the eviction proceedings for his impleadment on the ground that his
grand-father late Kanshi Nath Gupta was a tenant in the premises and
after the death of his grand-father he has become joint tenant along
with his father - Jitendra Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 2). The
prescribed authority vide order dated March 9, 2011 rejected the
application made by Pankaj Gupta holding that he was not heir of his
grand father (deceased tenant) as his father Jitendra Kumar Gupta
(respondent No. 2 herein) was alive.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority,
respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The
High Court by the impugned order has allowed the Writ Petition, set
aside the order of the prescribed authority and allowed the
application made by respondent No. 1 for his impleadment in the
eviction proceedings.
4. The High Court in the impugned order has observed that the
applicant (respondent No. 1 herein) has taken a positive stand that he
has been living and occupying in the subject accommodation since the
lifetime of the original tenant - his grand father late Kanshi Nath
Gupta - and as such he is a joint tenant.
5. The reasoning of the High Court is fallacious and
inconsistent with the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(for short, '1972 Act') and Section 8 read with the Schedule of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Hindu Succession Act').
6. 'Tenant' for the purposes of the 1972 is defined in Section
3 as follows :-
"Section 3(a) "tenant", in relation to a building, means a
person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death-
(1) in the case of a residential building, such only of
his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the
time of his death;
(2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs;"






7. The subject premises are said to be residential premises.


One of the essential conditions to be tenant after the tenant's death
in the case of residential building is that such person must be heir
of the deceased tenant. 
The parties are admittedly governed by Hindu
law. 
The applicant's father, who is respondent No. 2, is alive. 
In
other words, the deceased tenant is survived by his son - Jitendra
Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 2). 
Since the applicant (respondent No. 1)
is not a son of pre-deceased son, he is not a heir of his deceased
grand-father under Section 8 read with the Schedule of the Hindu
Succession Act. 
The High Court clearly erred in not taking into
consideration the first requirement of the definition of 'tenant'
whether or not the applicant was the heir of the deceased tenant. 
As
noted above, the applicant is not a heir of deceased tenant and,
therefore, he cannot be held to be a joint tenant along with
respondent No. 2 in the subject premises.
8. Appeal is allowed accordingly. The impugned order of the
High Court dated May 11, 2011 is set aside and the order dated March
9, 2011 passed by the prescribed authority is restored.


9. The prescribed authority is requested to decide the
eviction proceedings as expeditiously as may be possible.
10. No costs.






..........................J.
( R.M. LODHA )






NEW DELHI ..........................J.
APRIL 22, 2013 ( KURIAN JOSEPH )

ITEM NO.203 COURT NO.4 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20826/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 11/05/2011 in WP No.491/2011 of
The HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL)

SURAJ PRAKASH GULATI & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PANKAJ GUPTA & ANR. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and
with prayer for interim relief and office report ))

[FOR FINAL DISPOSAL]

Date: 22/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Garg, Adv.
Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mohan Pandey,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.


Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) |
|Court Master | |Court Master |


(signed order is placed on the file)