Tenancy Law | Residence for Convenience Does Not Make You a Tenant: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court dismissed the tenancy claim of Soli Behram Sukhadwala, who sought to establish himself as a tenant in a property under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which had set aside an earlier decision favoring Sukhadwala. The case centered around whether Sukhadwala could be considered a tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, following the death of his aunt, Dinamai Rustomji Master, the original tenant of the property.

The property in dispute consisted of a residential unit in Sohni Mansion, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai. The original tenant, Dinamai, had sublet part of the premises, retaining three rooms. After her death in 1977, Sukhadwala claimed tenancy rights, arguing that he had resided with Dinamai since 1974 and was thus entitled to tenancy under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, which allows tenancy rights to be passed to family members residing with the tenant at the time of their death.

Relationship with the Deceased Tenant: Sukhadwala claimed that Dinamai was his maternal aunt, but the court found that this relationship was distant and not adequately proven. The court noted that mere claims of distant familial ties were insufficient to establish tenancy rights under the Act.

Proof of Residence: The court found inconsistencies in Sukhadwala’s statements regarding his residence. He admitted to residing with his parents in Cusrow Baug, Colaba, during his college years and only moved in with Dinamai a few years before her death. The court ruled that such short-term residence, motivated by convenience, did not fulfill the criteria of residing with the tenant "as a family member" for a substantial period.

The court dismissed Sukhadwala's claim, holding that he failed to provide credible evidence of either his familial relationship with Dinamai or his continuous residence in the premises. The court ruled that tenancy rights could not be inherited in this manner, and the plaintiff had not proven that the property was his home, as intended under the Bombay Rent Act.

The Bombay High Court's ruling emphasized that tenancy rights under the Rent Act are not inheritable through distant familial connections or short-term residence arrangements. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and upheld the eviction order, concluding that Sukhadwala was not entitled to tenancy protection under the law.

Date of Decision: 1st October 2024

Soli Behram Sukhadwala vs. Nitin D. Sohni