Rights of tenants, nri tenants.
Deepak Chitnis
(Querist) 30 December 2017
This query is : Resolved
Facts. A is a tenant (82 Years) in an accommodation, in a building constructed before 1930 and has been staying in the since 1936 rented by his decd father paying rent regularly till date. The rented property (tenancy transferred in his name) is situated in Dadar , mumbai on 3rd floor. The persons staying with tenant wife , son and daughter. Due to old age tenant is unable to climb on third floor and there is no lift. The tenant has moved to Pune where he stays in a new flat purchased by him which is on 1st floor and convinient in his old age for over past 7 years. He visits his Mumbai rented property regularly and maintains. His son and daughter , staying with tenant(father) for over 26 years are NRIs and not staying in the property for last over 25 years.
Land lord's title to the building is not yet clear and the title to the property has not yet been transferred in their name as their grandfather who died intestate , The owner(grandfather) of the property with only one daughter now decd ( decd mother of heirs) in whose name the building is not yet transferred . Post this the building will be transferred to the two sons (heirs) who are having dispute between them also which is pending in court. One of the heirs is pressurizing the tenant to give up his tenenacy right for compensation post which the property is likely to go in redevelopment subject to resolution of dispute between them.
Querries:
1. Does tenant lose his tenancy right after staying for over 70 years as he is staying away due to old age.?
2. Can land lord pressurize tenant to accept compensation ?
3. Does NRI lose right to stay in rented property after taking up employment outside India?
What is the position in Law of all the persons in question/ Both landlords/ heirs as well as tenents.
3. Can tenancy right be transferred to either son or daughter who are NRIs and may return to India post retirement?
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 31 December 2017
Firstly, the property titles not relevant for ascertaining the status of the landlord. The landlord who receives rent for the rented premises can seek eviction of the tenant from the court after terminating the rent agreement.
As far continuous occupation of rented premises is concerned that cannot discontinued by the landlord by terminating the rental agreement as the tenant continues to occupy the premises because the contract of rental premises may have ended but the statutory tenancy continues which safeguard the tenant from been thrown out just for the reason of discontinuity of rental agreement under the Rent Control Act of the State in question.
All the relatives/heirs of the original tenant can enjoy the tenanted premises even after the death of original tenant as the tenancy gets inherited by them. The tenant even if not living for short period in the rented premises doesn't loses the right to return back and live there in future and same applies to his relatives/heirs.
Transfer of tenancy from the original tenant to his heir during his lifetime if both parties agree on terms and conditions.
The tenant doesn't loose tenancy rights for living in the premises for 70 years nor it is ground for evicting him from the premises.
Guest
(Expert) 31 December 2017
The answers to your questions are:
1) No, tenancy right will remain intact
2) No compulsion for the tenant
3) No. Until dispute is settled through the court on pending case, there is no locus standi of anyone being landlord
4) Depends upon the daughter being married, otherwise on mutual decision between the son & daughter.
Guest
(Expert) 31 December 2017
Rightly advised.
..........
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 03 January 2018
Whether the premises is governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act or Transfer of Property Act is not found mentioned in the statement?
Respectfully I differ with the experts on certain issues such as:
1. Despite the fact the tenant is paying rent regularly to the landlord (who is the titleholder or not is immaterial) the tenant has not been in regular occupation of demised premises, wherein the tenant has permanently shifted to his own flat in Pune, he (tenant) loses his right/protection granted to a tenant.
2. Since the premises is stated to be in dilapidated condition which required reconstruction/renovation and the landlord (may or may not be titleholder) has offered compensation, the landlord is well within his rights to get possession of the premises.
3. Since the tenancy has not so far been succeeded by NRI children of the tenant, they have no claim, interest or right in the demised premises.
4. When the demised premises is kept locked for a considerable period, the tenant/ his successor can not seek protection of the State Rent Control Act, if governed by the provisions of the Rent Act.
Even otherwise if the landlord determined the tenancy and applied for eviction either under Rent Act or TPA the tenant can not retain the possession.
Deepak Chitnis
(Querist) 03 January 2018
The rented property is in Bombay. I presume Bombay Rent Act would apply.
Guest
(Expert) 03 January 2018
NO, the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 has already been replaced 18 years back by the consolidated Act known as, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as applicable for the whole of Maharashtra.
Deepak Chitnis
(Querist) 03 January 2018
Dear Sirs, Any case law based on similar facts?
Guest
(Expert) 03 January 2018
Sorry Mr. Deepak Chitnis, I don't believe in case laws, as not every case law fits in the nature, character, & circumstances of all other cases.
Deepak Chitnis
(Querist) 04 January 2018
Thanks Mr. Dhingra.
There are two different versions of analysis referring to same law and facts. Which one is more likely to be upheld by the courts in terms of probability . Or is it very subjective?
Guest
(Expert) 04 January 2018
Subject to some specific object of the Government or the Court of law, all legal issues are subjective. Probability is also subject to the effective presentation and smartness of the lawyer of any party to convince the court of law on their point of view, but only when the main law is not clear to the court of law.
