Residential tenancy protection and strict statutory compliance cannot be extended to business premises or used to defeat eviction.

Family-member tenancy protection under the Bombay Rents Act was confined to residential premises: a relative merely residing with a deceased tenant could not claim tenancy rights in business premises absent clear legislative language. The Court also treated section 12(3)(b) as a conditional protection requiring strict statutory compliance, not a source of equitable discretion to resist eviction when its conditions are unmet. In supervisory review, interference was unwarranted without perversity or jurisdictional error, and the High Court exceeded the limits of Article 227 by disturbing the eviction decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the definition of tenant in section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 extends to a family member residing with the deceased tenant in respect of business premises. (ii) Whether section 12(3)(b) of the Act confers a discretionary jurisdiction to refuse eviction despite non-compliance with its statutory conditions, and whether interference under Article 227 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the definition of tenant in section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 extends to a family member residing with the deceased tenant in respect of business premises.

Analysis: The protective purpose of section 5(11)(c) was held to relate to premises occupied for residence, where a family member residing with the tenant could require continuation of protection after the tenant's death. The provision was contrasted with the position in business premises, where residence with the deceased tenant does not bear the same legal relevance and may confer tenancy on a person having no connection with the business. The Court relied on the structure and object of the provision and held that the later Gujarat amendment, which separately dealt with business premises, reflected the true legislative distinction.

Conclusion: Section 5(11)(c) applies only to residential premises and does not confer tenancy rights in respect of business premises on a family member merely residing with the deceased tenant.

Issue (ii): Whether section 12(3)(b) of the Act confers a discretionary jurisdiction to refuse eviction despite non-compliance with its statutory conditions, and whether interference under Article 227 was justified.

Analysis: The Court held that section 12(3)(b) is a conditional protection and not a source of discretion to override statutory default. Where the tenant does not strictly satisfy the conditions prescribed by the provision, the landlord's claim to eviction cannot be defeated on equitable grounds. The Court further held that the High Court, in supervisory jurisdiction, could not interfere with the appellate court's factual assessment and exercise of discretion without first showing perversity or jurisdictional error, and that the High Court had exceeded the limits of Article 227.

Conclusion: Section 12(3)(b) does not create a discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the tenant, and the High Court was not justified in interfering under Article 227.

Final Conclusion: The tenant could not claim protection as a statutory tenant in business premises under section 5(11)(c), and the High Court wrongly upset the eviction decree by misconstruing section 12(3)(b) and by exceeding its supervisory jurisdiction. The appellate decree of eviction was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory protection conditioned on strict compliance cannot be converted into an equitable discretion, and a family-member tenancy clause framed for residential occupation does not extend to business premises absent clear legislative language.

---