MUMBAI, April 24 -- The Bombay High Court ruled that individuals living with tenants out of affection or caregiving, without any blood or legally recognised relationship, cannot claim tenancy rights, directing a domestic worker and his wife to vacate a flat in south Mumbai. He was employed as full-time domestic help in 1948 and continued to live in the flat, along with his wife, even after the legal tenant's death in 1985, the court noted. The dispute pertains to a flat in Shanker Bhavan, Gamdevi, originally occupied by PS Athwankare as a tenant. The owners of the flat claim that although the tenancy was terminated in November 1965, Athwankare continued to reside there until his death in August 1985. After his demise, his domestic help, Shantaram Gujar, and his wife continued occupying the flat, asserting that they were entitled to remain as they had cared for the tenant and were considered his family. The flat owners, however, contended that the couple were trespassers with no legal right to stay and sought their eviction. When the Gujars refused to vacate despite notices issued in 1985, the owners filed an eviction suit, terming their occupation "wrongful and illegal". The couple opposed the plea, claiming that their long stay since 1948 entitled them to tenancy protection under the Maharashtra Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. A trial court dismissed the suit in 1996, prompting the owners to approach the Bombay High Court in 2002, when a single-judge bench set aside the trial court's order, holding that the Rent Act protects only family members connected by blood or marriage, not unrelated individuals regardless of emotional ties. Following this, the Gujars challenged this ruling in the high court. During the hearing on April 20, a division bench of justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe dismissed the plea filed by Gujars, reiterating that the term "family" under the Rent Act must be interpreted in its ordinary sense, limited to blood relations or legally recognised ties. Observing that the appellants were neither family members nor legal heirs of the original tenant, the court held they could not claim protection under the Act. "We agree that the appellant could not have taken the position of asserting any protection under the provisions of the Rent Act, as he was not the member of the family of the tenant (Mr. Athwankar) nor a legal heir as discussed", the court said. The bench directed the couple to vacate the flat within eight weeks, noting that the owners had been deprived of their property rights for several years. The court further underscored that tenant-protection laws cannot be stretched to the extent of extinguishing landlords' rights....