In a key judgement, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a co-owner of a property qualifies as a co-landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and is therefore, entitled to initiate tenant eviction proceedings, regardless of whether they possess an exclusive title to the property or even a formal partition with her family members.
The Supreme Court delivered this judgement (reportable, dated May 15, 2026, case no. 2026 INSC 496) in a tenant eviction case filed in July 1993 by Smt. D'Silva and her sister against the legal heirs of their father's tenant Mr Lacerda (now deceased).
According to the submission to the court, the land on which this property stands was given on a 99-year lease by a cooperative society in favour of Smt Marietta's father. On June 6, 1959, her father also obtained five share certificates issued by the co-operative society for this land. Then her father constructed a building on this land located in Chembur (Bombay, now Mumbai), which comprises six flats.
On June 6, 1962, her father rented flat no. 2 to Mr Lacerda and after he passed away on December 7, 1969, his widow, Mrs Lacerda, inherited the tenancy and got it in her name.
On July 5, 1987, the five share certificates for the land, however, were transferred by Smt D'Silva's father in the joint names of her and her sisters and brothers. There were five children in the family, including two brothers living abroad.
However, in July 1993, i.e., three months after Mrs. Lacerda (widow of tenant Augustine Lacerda) died, Smt D'Silva and her sister filed the tenant eviction case (R.A.E. Suit No. 411/861 of 1996). She wanted to evict the tenants on the ground of her bona fide need coupled with greater hardship and availability of alternative accommodation by the tenants.
On February 24, 1994, Smt D'Silva's father died. According to her account, after her father's death, she, her sister, and brothers reached an oral family arrangement. Under this arrangement, she and her five siblings would co-own all the flats as well as jointly contribute to the maintenance and up-keep of the entire building.
She also said that under this oral family arrangement, flat nos. 5 and 6 would be earmarked for exclusive use by her two brothers, who are expected to return to India soon, and she would get flat no. 2 after the eviction of the tenants.
However, while the eviction proceedings were underway, she moved into flats 5 and 6 in 1996 and began living with her mother, stating she had no other place to stay.
On September 14, 2007, the Small Causes Court (trial court) decreed the eviction suit in her favour by holding that she had established her bona fide requirement and that alternative accommodation was available to the tenants. Her sister's bona fide requirement was rejected as she was living in Goa, and she did not challenge this also.
The trial court had also rejected the plea of change of user; thus, Smt Marietta (co-owner and daughter) maintained the case. The tenants, aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, appealed before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in October 2007, which was dismissed vide judgement dated July 25, 2017.
The tenants then filed a civil revision application before the Bombay High Court on October 3, 2017. On June 23, 2025, the Bombay High Court set aside the concurrent decrees of the courts below and directed restoration of the suit premises to the tenant.
Unhappy with the Bombay High Court's decision, Smt Marietta D'Silva (co-owner, daughter) filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On May 15, 2026, she won the case. She was represented by Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Advocate on Record Mr. Arun Srikumar, Advocate Mr. Nadeem Afroz, and Advocate Mr. Ritwik Gupta.
The Supreme Court observed that as on the date of filing this tenant eviction case, the tenants had alternative accommodations as one of them (tenant number 1) owned a flat in Bombay (now Mumbai) and another (tenant number 2) owned a flat in the same society since 1976, which was initially occupied by a family member (tenant number 3).
However, in 2002, tenants number 2 sold the said flat for Rs 12 lakh and used the money to buy another flat in Borivali, which is occupied by the said family member (tenant number 3).
The Supreme Court said that the tenants' contention that alternate accommodation under the Rent Act is effective only if the tenant himself has acquired or been allotted suitable premises is contrary to the facts of the present case.
The Supreme Court said that tenant number 3 was and continues to be in occupation of one of the flats owned by the other tenants. No evidence was provided to show that tenant number 1 and tenant number 2 could not reside with tenant number 3. Accordingly, the judgment in the B.R. Mehta case does not assist the tenants, ruled the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court said that the conduct of tenant number 2 in selling his alternative accommodation during the pendency of the eviction suit indicates that the sale was effected only to avoid a decree of eviction.
Even considering subsequent events, the Supreme Court said that Marietta D'Silva's (co-owner, daughter) hardship is demonstrably greater than that of the tenants, as she continues to have no accommodation in Mumbai, while her brothers have taken exclusive control of flat nos. 5 and 6, rendering them unavailable for her use.
In addition, the original contesting tenants, tenant numbers 1 and 2, are no longer alive, and tenant number 2 was unmarried and left no heirs. Thus, tenant number 3 continues to occupy that separate flat. The son of tenant 1 resides and works in Pune, where he owns property, while his wife resides in Norway. He has no genuine need for this flat in Chembur, Mumbai.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court said that tenant number 1's son's assertion that he might apply for a better job in Mumbai if affordable accommodation were available cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court said that he has stable employment in Pune and owns property there, evidencing his long-term intention to remain in Pune.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in light of the tenants' acquisition of alternative accommodation, greater hardship would be caused to Marietta D'Silva (co-owner, daughter) if eviction were denied.
Why the co-owner won this tenant eviction case?
Sonam Chandwani , Managing Partner , KS Legal & Associates said to ET Wealth Online that the Supreme Court’s ruling is significant because it reiterates the settled legal position that under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the term “landlord” is not confined to a person having absolute or exclusive title over the premises.
Chandwani says: "A co-owner who is entitled to receive rent and represent the ownership interest is competent to maintain eviction proceedings. The Court appears to have drawn a distinction between disputes concerning title among co-owners and the rights and obligations existing between the landlord and the tenant."
According to Chandwani, a tenant is not expected to adjudicate upon the inter se rights of the owners and, therefore, cannot challenge the maintainability of an eviction petition merely on the ground that the proceedings have been instituted by only one co-owner.
Legally, Chandwani says that the judgment reinforces the doctrine that every co-owner is deemed to possess an interest in the entirety of the property and not merely in a fractional or demarcated portion. Consequently, unless another co-owner expressly opposes the institution of the proceedings or there is a subsisting dispute affecting the authority of the person filing the case, one co-owner is competent to act on behalf of all co-owners.
Chandwani says: "The requirement of establishing exclusive ownership or obtaining a prior partition decree would be inconsistent with the nature of co-ownership recognised under property law." The ruling also prevents tenants from raising title-related defences that are beyond the scope of rent control proceedings.
Supreme Court order and discussion
A double bench of the Supreme Court heard this case, examined the facts, and then set aside the Bombay High Court's judgement, which had overturned the trial court's judgement and ordered eviction of the tenants.
The Supreme Court said that co-owners are entitled to receive rent and thus can be given the status of landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Act"), reported LiveLaw.
The Supreme Court also rejected the tenants' argument that she lacked exclusive ownership over the property and thus she had no right to ask for eviction. The Supreme Court, while rejecting this argument made by the tenant, said that the definition of landlord is very broad, and this definition accommodates co-owners as well as persons who are entitled to receive rent on behalf of others.
The Supreme Court said that Section 5(3) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines landlord as "any person who is for the time being, receiving, or entitled to receive, rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account, or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person or…."
In light of this definition, the Supreme Court said that they are of the view that she, being a co-owner, was entitled to receive rent and thus fell squarely within the statutory definition of 'landlord'.
The Supreme Court also observed that in her cross-examination she had deposed that she is receiving rent on behalf of her mother. Consequently, the Supreme Court said that they are of the view that at the time of filing of the suit, she was a co-landlord as well as co-owner of the suit building, and even if there was a deficiency in the pleadings, the parties knew the case, and they proceeded to trial by producing evidence.
The Supreme Court also clarified that exclusive ownership or partition of a property is not a pre-condition for maintaining a tenant eviction case. The Supreme Court also said that all co-owners of the property are landlords as far as rent control law is concerned, and any of them can maintain a tenant eviction case if legally permissible.
Thus, she won the case, and tenants were ordered to evict.
