Summary
A landlord sought release of a shop obtained from his father through a family settlement. The Supreme Court held that the summary rent proceedings did not call for a partition-suit inquiry into whether the property was coparcenary or separate, where the tenant asserted no adverse title and the acknowledged former owner had settled it on his son. Bona fide need and greater comparative hardship were established. The appellate release order was restored regardless of whether the tenant accepted an offered alternative shop.
Issues
- Whether the tenant could defeat release by disputing the family settlement and coparcenary character in these summary proceedings.
- Whether bona fide requirement and comparative hardship supported release.
Held
- A summary rent proceeding should examine the landlord-tenant relationship to the extent necessary rather than conduct a full title inquiry where the tenant sets up no adverse title. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 14)
- The admitted former owner had joined the settlement, and the tenant had elsewhere accepted the son’s landlord status. The coparcenary-versus-separate-property dispute did not defeat the relationship here. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The landlord lacked alternative business premises and established greater hardship. An alternative shop offered to reduce the tenant’s hardship was optional for the tenant and did not condition release. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The prescribed authority’s and High Court’s orders were set aside and the appellate release order restored. Three months to vacate was granted subject to an undertaking within three weeks. Release was required regardless of whether the tenant opted for the alternative shop.