The Supreme Court has ruled that women co-owners of family property can seek eviction of tenants even without an exclusive ownership title or formal partition deed. According to reports from Business Standard, the court held that co-owners can be treated as 'co-landlords' under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, if they are entitled to receive rent. This means co-owners do not have to wait for a legal partition or prove absolute ownership before initiating eviction proceedings for genuine personal requirements.
The ruling came in a dispute involving Marietta D'Silva, who filed an eviction case against tenants occupying a flat in a building in Chembur, Mumbai. As reported by Business Standard, the case, which began in 1993, eventually reached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court overturned earlier eviction orders. The Supreme Court restored the eviction order passed by the trial court and held that co-owners have rights over the entire property and are not restricted only to their undivided share.
The judgement recognised the importance of oral family arrangements and their legal significance when acted upon by family members over time. According to Fazl Askari, senior associate at PSL Advocates & Solicitors, the court's recognition of oral family arrangements as enforceable is significant as families rarely reduce their internal understandings to paper. Legal experts note that the ruling is important because many Indian families manage inherited properties through informal understandings rather than registered partition documents.
The judgement reinforces that daughters who become co-owners of family property can exercise ownership rights, including managing the property and taking legal action against tenants. As reported by Business Standard, the court's reasoning confirms that 'exclusive ownership or partition of a property is not a pre-condition for maintaining a tenant eviction case'. The ruling also prevents tenants from challenging eviction proceedings simply by arguing that the person filing the case is not the sole owner.
For property owners, the judgement makes it easier for co-owners to take legal action against tenants where ownership is shared among family members. According to Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris, the judgement strengthens the legal position that oral family arrangements, supported by long-standing conduct and possession, can establish ownership rights. The Supreme Court's decision is likely to influence disputes involving inherited properties, informal family settlements and tenant eviction proceedings where ownership is shared among multiple heirs.
