Joint tenancy and subsequent events can defeat exclusive transfer claims and justify moulding of relief in appeal.

Tenancy rights treated by the parties and the municipal authority as a joint tenancy on the original tenant's death could not be lawfully transferred exclusively to one heir on the basis of a convenience-based consent letter or an unprobated will dealing only with the nursery business. The later municipal transfer, made after objections and without bona fide consideration, was therefore invalid, and the surrender and lease founded on it were void ab initio. The article also notes that an appellate court may consider subsequent events where later developments materially affect relief; because construction proceeded under interim protection and equities changed, moulding the relief by directing allotment of five flats was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenancy rights in the suit premises devolved as joint tenancy on the heirs of the original tenant and whether the subsequent transfer of tenancy exclusively in favour of one heir on the basis of a consent letter and unprobated will was valid; (ii) Whether the appellate court could take note of subsequent events and mould the relief by directing allotment of five flats to the respondents.

Issue (i): Whether the tenancy rights in the suit premises devolved as joint tenancy on the heirs of the original tenant and whether the subsequent transfer of tenancy exclusively in favour of one heir on the basis of a consent letter and unprobated will was valid.

Analysis: The tenancy was repeatedly treated by the parties and by the municipal authority as a joint tenancy after the death of the original tenant. The earlier proceedings had attained finality on the footing that all the heirs were tenants. The so-called consent letter was held to be only for convenience and did not show any relinquishment or surrender of rights. The unprobated will of the widow could not confer an enforceable right, and it dealt only with the nursery business, not the tenancy. The statutory setting and the conduct of the parties showed that there was no lawful exclusive transfer in favour of one heir. The later transfer by the municipal authority, made after objections had been raised and without bona fide consideration of them, was held to be illegal.

Conclusion: The tenancy was joint, the exclusive transfer in favour of one heir was invalid, and the subsequent surrender and lease founded on that transfer were void ab initio.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could take note of subsequent events and mould the relief by directing allotment of five flats to the respondents.

Analysis: The Court held that a court of appeal is not rigidly confined to the original facts where later developments have a direct bearing on the appropriate relief. Since construction had been undertaken during the pendency of the litigation under interim protection, and the rights in the disputed property had materially changed, the relief could be moulded to do complete justice. The reservation of five flats during the interim stage and the continuing equities between the parties justified the direction made by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in moulding the relief and directing allotment of five flats to the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the impugned judgment correctly held the tenancy transfer invalid and appropriately adjusted the final relief in light of subsequent events and equities between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tenancy rights are treated and admitted as joint, an exclusive transfer to one heir cannot be sustained on a mere convenience-based consent letter or an unprobated testamentary claim, and an appellate court may mould relief by considering subsequent events that materially affect the final entitlement of the parties.

---