Key facts
- The Supreme Court ruled that a co-owner of a property is considered a co-landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
- Co-owners are entitled to initiate tenant eviction proceedings regardless of exclusive title or formal partition.
- The ruling was made in a case concerning a property in Chembur, Mumbai, with eviction proceedings dating back to 1993.
- The court found that the tenants had acquired alternative accommodation and that the co-owner faced greater hardship.
- The Supreme Court's decision overturned a Bombay High Court ruling that had favored the tenants.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a co-owner of a property qualifies as a landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, allowing them to initiate tenant eviction proceedings. This landmark decision was delivered in a case involving Smt. Marietta D'Silva, who filed an eviction suit in 1993 against the heirs of her father's tenant for a property in Chembur, Mumbai.
The property's land was originally leased to Smt. D'Silva's father, who constructed a building with six flats. He rented one flat to Mr. Lacerda in 1962. After Mr. Lacerda's death, his widow inherited the tenancy. In 1987, the share certificates for the land were transferred to Smt. D'Silva and her four siblings. Following the death of Mrs. Lacerda in 1993, Smt. D'Silva and her sister filed for eviction, citing bona fide need and greater hardship.
Despite initial decrees in favor of Smt. D'Silva from the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench, the Bombay High Court overturned these decisions in 2025, restoring the premises to the tenants. Smt. D'Silva appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on May 15, 2026, set aside the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court observed that the tenants had alternative accommodations and that Smt. D'Silva's hardship was demonstrably greater, especially as her brothers had exclusive control over other flats, leaving her without accommodation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the definition of 'landlord' under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is broad and includes individuals entitled to receive rent, even on behalf of others. Smt. D'Silva's deposition that she received rent on behalf of her mother supported her status as a co-landlord at the time of filing the suit.