Mumbai: Observing that a “service” relationship, such as that of a caretaker or domestic help, does not constitute a “family” relationship under the law, and that simply residing with a tenant for convenience does not grant the right to inherit tenancy, a civil court this week ordered the immediate eviction of a man who had been illegally occupying a 500 sq ft flat in Dadar Hindu Colony for over a decade.The court ruled that the defendant, Madhukar Kadam, was a trespasser rather than a legal heir. The court rejected Kadam’s claim that he was a family member of the deceased original tenant, Meera Tendulkar, citing his inability to provide basic familial details and their differing castes. “I safely conclude that in the absence of any legal and lawful right, the status of the defendant and his family members…is nothing but that of a trespasser. After the death of Meera Tendulkar, they have no right to retain the property. They cannot inherit the rights of the original tenant merely by occupying it after her death,” judge A H Baig said.Regarding the defendant’s reliance on a ration card, the judge observed, “Mere entering the name in the ration card will not make the defendant a relative of the deceased. He cannot claim any tenancy or other legal right on that basis. It is only for rationing purposes and not beyond that.” The court also relied on legal precedents which said that “long possession or even permissive long possession cannot itself establish that a person was a tenant of the landlord. As soon as permission was withdrawn, the status of occupant is converted into encroacher, and…has no legal right.”The suit was initiated in 2013 by Hemant and Vineet Sardar, the US-based owners of multiple buildings on Khareghat Road in Dadar Hindu Colony. The dispute centers on the contested occupancy of the ground-floor premises in Mangesh Mahalaxmi building, which was originally tenanted by Tendulkar. The petitioners, representing the building owners, submitted that following her death in Nov 2011, Kadam lacked any legal standing to remain in the property. They submitted that Kadam and his now-deceased father, who was employed as Tendulkar’s domestic help, were never tenants or legal heirs, and that their occupancy was merely a result of the original tenant’s sympathy.However, Kadam claimed that his father was Tendulkar’s cousin and that they had lived together as a family since 1965. He claimed that this relationship granted him the right to inherit the tenancy, a position he attempted to bolster by citing a declaration letter purportedly issued by Tendulkar in 2011. Kadam also submitted that he had been paying rent via a joint bank account and that his status as a resident was known to the landlord. While the plaintiffs sought eviction on the grounds that Kadam was a trespasser, he countered by claiming the lawsuit as an act of harassment, insisting that his possession was lawful, and that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.The civil court, however, noted that the defendant and the deceased tenant belonged to different castes and different native regions, and Kadam was unable to provide basic details regarding Tendulkar’s gotra or family background. The court also observed that Kadam had no evidence of any rent being transferred to his name after Tendulkar passed away, stating, “This admission is material in nature. It collapses the entire theory and defence put forth by defendant.”
