The Himachal Pradesh High Court has definitively ruled that under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the right to inherit a deceased tenant’s tenancy belongs solely to the surviving spouse. In its judgment, the Court made it clear that other legal heirs such as children, parents, or daughters-in-law do not have any right to succeed to the tenancy once the spouse has inherited it. According to the Court, this principle flows directly from the statutory scheme: under Explanation II of the Act, the right of each successor is a personal right, and upon the death of a successor the tenancy does not devolve to any further legal heirs.
The background of the case involved premises in Shimla that were originally a single-storey garage. The tenant was running an atta chakki (a flour mill) in part of the garage, and after his death, his wife, Jawala Devi, claimed succession to the tenancy. Other family members continued living on the premises, and they had built two additional storeys without obtaining permission from either the landlord or the Municipal Corporation. The landlord later alleged that the upper floors were constructed illegally.
At the trial court level, the suit brought by the landlord was dismissed. However, the appellate court ordered the demolition of the two additional storeys. Dissatisfied, the tenants filed a regular second appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
In its decision, the High Court closely examined the technical report, the demolition order, and the entries in the sale deed. The Court accepted that the original structure was indeed a single-storey garage, and the additional floors had been added later, without proper sanction.
Turning to the issue of succession, the High Court emphasized that the surviving spouse must be recognized as the successor because she was residing with her husband until his death. The Court rejected the objections raised by other parties who disputed the locus (legal standing) of the wife (plaintiff) to file the suit, noting that under the Act, once the spouse becomes the successor, no other heirs can claim the tenancy on death of that spouse.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, delivering the judgment, underlined that the legislative intent was to restrict succession to the immediate surviving spouse, and not to open the door more broadly to children or extended family. He pointed out that Explanation I and Explanation II of the Act explicitly define the class of successors, and limit the chain of succession. Once the spouse is admitted as a successor, her right is personal and non-transmissible to other legal heirs on her death.
Thus, the Court held that even though other family members continued to occupy the premises and had constructed additional stories, they had no legal entitlement to the tenancy rights under the statutory framework. The high court thereby affirmed that the wife alone succeeded to the tenancy, and the claims by children, parents, or other relatives were not sustainable.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.