In the 1940s, Mr. A takes a flat on rental basis in Mumbai. He had several children. However, only one son, Mr. B, continued staying with him on the rented flat. Mr. A expires in 1971. He is survived by several children but all of them except Mr. B has got settled elsewhere. Mr. B continued to stay in the same flat alongwith his wife and children. He used to pay all statutory dues even though the rented flat was still in the name of Mr. A. Mr. B's request for transfer of the flat in his name was refused by the landlord saying that they will do it only if he gets a 'no objection letter' from all his other brothers and sisters. Mr. B was not willing to do this and therefore, the flat remained in the name of Mr. A. Mr. B and his wife has 4 children - three daughters and a son. His wife expired in the year 1975. He marries off all his daughters who are all settled separately. The son, Mr.C, who did not have any earnings of his own, continued to stay with Mr. B; Mr. C also got married in the year 1986 and has a son. All expenses of the family were taken care of by Mr. B who also continued to settle all dues relating to the flat. In the year 1992, the landlord decides to reconstruct the building and therefore, enters into an agreement with all the existing tenants who were offered a flat of the same area in the to be reconstructed building. Accordingly, Mr. B, also signs the agreement (though the flat was still in the name of Mr.A). One of the clauses of the agreement states that Mr. B will not be foregoing his tenancy rights till he is able to occupy the flat allotted to him in the newly reconstructed building. However, he was never able to see his new flat as the reconstruction of the building got delayed due to various reasons and in the meantime, during December 1996, he expired, intestate, leaving behind three daughters and a son. It is to be noted that till the year 1992, the rent receipts were issued in the name of Mr. A and subsequently, no rent receipts were issued by the landlord. In May 1997, the builder starts reconstruction of the building and since Mr. C was then staying in the flat, he was offered an alternate accommodation on a temporary basis. The three sisters come to know of this development and wrote a letter to the builder stating that they are also entitled to a share in the property of Mr. B. Since there was no proper response from the builder, they filed a case with the Mumbai High Court claiming their share in the property/partition of the property. Mr. C in his written statement to the Court submits that he is the sole heir to the new flat on the basis of his tenancy right though there was no evidence to show that the tenancy right was transferred in his name. He has submitted various documents like telephone bills, electricity bills etc. in support of his claim for sole ownership over the property. The Hon'ble Court after going through the papers submitted by Mr. C gave an Order allowing occupation of the flat by Mr. C as an agent of Court Receiver who was appointed to bring about an understanding between the parties and till a final decision is taken in the matter. The case is still pending with the Court. In the meantime, the lawyer attending the case on behalf of the sisters has decided to withdraw for reasons unknown. In the light of the above, we would like to have your valued opinion on following issues: 1. Are the sisters entitled to any share in the property? 2. Does the Mumbai Tenancy Act has any bearing on this case? 3. If Mr. C is entitled to tenancy rights, can the sisters claim their share on the basis of 'Hindu Succession Act'? 4. What are the formalities for appointing a new lawyer - do you require a 'no objection letter' from the existing lawyer prior to appointing a new lawyer or is it that the new lawyer, once appointed, gets the 'no objection letter' from the existing lawyer. 5. Your valued opinion on any other issues which we might have overlooked?
