The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the tenancy rights of a woman residing in a Parsi Punchayet property in Dadar, holding that her status as the legal heir of a deceased tenant entitled her to tenancy protection, even though she was unable to establish that she had been living with him at the time of his death.
The ruling came from a single-judge bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye, which dismissed a petition filed by the Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties Trust challenging earlier decisions of the Small Causes Court and its appellate bench in favour of Katty Mistry.
The dispute traces back to 1993 following the death of tenant Baji B. Patel. Mistry, who claimed to be Patel’s first cousin and legal heir, sought recognition as the lawful tenant and requested that rent receipts be transferred to her name.
The Trust opposed her claim, contending that she neither resided with Patel before his death nor had any familial connection to him. It alleged that she was a “rank trespasser” attempting to “unlawfully usurp the suit premises”.
In December 1997, the Small Causes Court ruled in Mistry’s favour and directed the Trust to recognise her as the tenant. The appellate bench upheld that decision in 1999, prompting the Trust to move the High Court in 2000.
Before the High Court, the Trust relied on documents, including ration cards and electoral records to argue that Mistry was merely a neighbour and not a member of Patel’s household. Mistry, however, maintained that her claim stemmed from her position as Patel’s legal heir under the Indian Succession Act applicable to Parsis. She also pointed out that no competing heir had come forward.
While the court observed that Mistry failed to prove co-residence with Patel, it accepted the lower courts’ findings that she was his first cousin and lawful heir. The bench also relied on Unit Trust Certificates showing Patel and Mistry as joint holders, which supported her claim.
“The view taken is the most probable, and the conclusion drawn by the courts is based on material available on record. As such, there is no reason to interfere in the limited jurisdiction of this court,” the bench said while dismissing the Trust’s plea.
Source: Hindustan Times
