It is not necessary that business on an immovable property owned by a joint family is also owned by the said family

The Supreme Court has ruled that business conducted on immovable property owned by a joint family is not necessarily owned by that family. This decision arose from a case where a tenant claimed rights based on joint Hindu family succession to a hotel business. The court examined whether the Karta of the family was competent to surrender tenancy rights, impacting the appellant's subsequent tenancy.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6149 OF 2015

KIRAN DEVI .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD
& ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 6.2.2013 whereby a writpetition filed by respondent No. 41 herein was allowed, holding that the tenant in the premises in question was representing a joint Hindu family and that the Karta was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights in favour of respondent No. 1-TheBihar State Sunni Wakf Board2 and consequently the induction ofthe appellant as a tenant by the Wakf Board was illegal.Accordingly, a direction was issued to dispossess the appellant from the suit premises and to handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration before the competentcivil court stating that he is a tenant in the suit premises and isentitled to continue in the suit premises as a tenant on payment of monthly rent. The basis of such declaration was that Ram SharanRam, the great grandfather of the plaintiff, predeceased his brother Ram Sewak Ram who died issueless and his widowpredeceased him. Ram Sewak Ram was carrying out joint familybusiness of hotel in the premises of the Wakf Board. Due toadvanced age, he handed over the possession of the hotelbusiness to his nephew Devendra Prasad Sinha, the grandfather of the plaintiff. The grandfather of the plaintiff succeeded to thetenancy as member of the joint Hindu family. After his death,defendant Nos. 1 to 3 succeeded to tenancy as members of the Joint Hindu Family. The shop was being run by Surendra Kumar, son of Devendra Prasad Sinha, when the grandfather of the plaintiff fell ill.

To know more in details find the attachment file