Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedIslam Hussain & Ors. v. Hajari Lal & Anr.
2026 INSC 1123
Civil Appeal No. 8092 of 2013
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 13 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 3(g)
Final Outcome
Appeal partly allowed: the High Court's order set aside in part; the respondents to vacate shop B within six months on an undertaking filed within a week, clear its arrears within one month, pay current rent meanwhile and create no third-party interest; no costs (paras 12-15).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 13.10.2026
Key holdings
- Section 3(g) does not include a nephew within 'family' (para 6).
- K.V. Muthu turned on special facts and does not widen the definition (para 7).
- Courts cannot add relatives the Legislature left out (paras 8-9).
- Eviction was ordered only from shop B, as the shops were let separately (paras 10-11).
- Possession within six months on an undertaking; arrears within one month (para 12).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant landlords let two shops in Varanasi to respondent no. 1, who in 1990 entered into a partnership with his nephew, respondent no. 2, in respect of shop B (para 2). The landlords sued for ejectment on the grounds of sub-letting and default in rent (para 2). The Small Cause Court (04.03.1998), the revisional court (17.12.2003) and the Allahabad High Court (11.09.2012) dismissed the suit, holding that the nephew, brought up by the tenant since childhood, was a member of his family, so the partnership was not sub-letting (paras 1, 3).
Court's Findings
Section 3(g) defines 'family' as the spouse, male lineal descendants, and such parents, grandparents and unmarried, widowed, divorced or judicially separated daughters, or daughters of male lineal descendants, as normally reside with the person, and, for a landlord, any female with a legal right of residence (paras 5-6). A nephew is not included (para 6). K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal, which treated a foster son as family, turned on special facts, including a will giving him a life estate (para 7). Here, apart from living with the tenant since childhood, no special fact existed; reading 'nephew' into the definition would expand it case by case, and the Court cannot add members the Legislature left out (paras 8-9). With the nephew outside the family, the sub-letting of shop B was admitted (para 10). But the shops had been treated separately throughout, as the courts below found, so the plea that sub-letting part warranted eviction from both failed (paras 10-11).
Legal Principle
A nephew, even one brought up by the tenant since childhood, is not a member of the 'family' under Section 3(g) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972, and courts cannot enlarge that definition; a partnership with him in a let shop is sub-letting. Eviction is confined to the premises separately let and sub-let (paras 6-11).
Precedents Relied Upon
- K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal (1997) 2 SCC 53
A foster son was treated as a member of the family on special facts, the tenant having bequeathed him a life estate by will; it does not bring a nephew within the statutory definition.
