Legal Interpretation and Vacancy of Tenanted Property

The following case summary delves into the legal analysis conducted by the court regarding the vacancy of a tenanted property. The focus is on the interpretation of various laws and provisions surrounding the dissolution of a partnership and the effect of a partner’s demise on the occupancy status of the property. The court’s analysis and decision provide valuable insights into the application of relevant legal principles in determining the vacancy of the premises.


  • An application was filed by the appellant to implead the legal heirs of Subhash Chand, namely, Amit Goyal and Smt. Swati Goyal.
  • Subhash Chand was a sub-tenant involved in demolition and changing the structure of the property.
  • Pradeep Kumar put a person who was not a family member in possession of the property, potentially rendering it vacant under Section 12(2) of the Act.
  • The District Magistrate permitted Subhash Chand to be inducted as a partner on 15.11.1982.
  • A written partnership deed was signed between Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand on 19.11.1982, with Clause 6 stating that all provisions of the Partnership Act would be applicable.
  • The revision petition filed by the landlord challenging the order of the District Magistrate was dismissed on 12.12.1983.
  • The appellant argued that the partnership between Pradeep Kumar and Subhash Chand ended automatically upon the death of Pradeep Kumar on 21.05.2004.
  • Service was effected on the proposed legal heirs as per the tracking report of the postal authorities.

Also Read: Analysis of Commencement Date in Gratuity Act Amendment Case


  • Landlords had to give notice of vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate under Section 15 of the Act.
  • Subsequent events following the District Magistrate’s order had to be considered.
  • The summary dismissal of the special leave petition doesn’t preclude the remedy of review as per Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another.
  • In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., a separation of powers argument was raised regarding approval by the District Magistrate, an Executive Authority.
  • The Act’s relevant provisions include Section 41 and the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.
  • Interpretation of Section 12(2) and 25 of the Act was discussed in Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P and Others.

Also Read: Interpretation of Will and Hindu Succession Act: Legal Analysis


  • The order permitting Subhash Chand as a partner with Pradeep Kumar has ended due to the passage of time and operation of law.
  • The High Court failed to consider the fact that the partnership had come to an end due to the subsequent events, including the death of Subhash Chand and Pradeep Kumar.
  • The partnership was dissolved by the death of one of the partners, Pradeep Kumar, in accordance with Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act.
  • The tenancy also ended as per Section 12(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, with the dissolution of the partnership.
  • The District Magistrate, under Section 16 of the Act, has the authority to make decisions regarding the use of the building.
  • The High Court failed to consider the death of one of the partners as leading to the deemed vacation of the premises.
  • The appellant cited the judgment in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders for support.
  • The judgment highlighted the principle that the death of a partner can result in the vacation of premises.
  • The assertion that Subhash Chand was a divorcee with no children was found to be incorrect as he had a son and a daughter.
  • With both partners deceased and no clause allowing continuation of the partnership by legal heirs, the non-residential tenanted premises is deemed vacant in law.
  • The tenant is considered to have ceased to occupy the building as per legal interpretation.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of Pujaris’ Rights in Temple Land Ownership


  • The Civil Appeal is allowed, and the tenant is deemed to cease occupying the premises.
  • The appellants have the right to seek available remedies and proceed according to the law and the provisions of the Act.
  • The tenanted property has become vacant as a result of the decision.
  • The High Court’s order in the Review Application dated 23.04.2008 is set aside.


Case Number: C.A. No.-003477-003477 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *