DHAN MAL DEVI JAIN Vs. GORDHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the Constitution bench in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar has now settled the conflict between the decision of this court in Damadilal v. Parashram taking a view upon the construction of the definition of the term 'tenant' under S. 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as including a statutory tenant and also holding that the right is a heritable one, and the view to the contrary expressed in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde upon a construction of the word 'tenant' as defined in S. 5 (11) (c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 regarding the nature of statutory tenants and its heritability. The court has held in Smt. Gian Devi Anand case at p. 27 of the Report expressly overruled the view taken in Ganpat Ladha case.

(2.) In the present case, the High court has rightly held that on the death of the statutory tenant Ghotan Mal having occurred on 9/12/1972 i. e. prior to the date when the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 came into operation, therights were governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is to be noticed that the definition of the term 'tenant' as contained in S. 2 (1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was almost identical with the definition of the term in S. 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. That being so, the right of a statutory tenant was heritable. In view of the decision of the Constitution bench in Smt. Gian Devi Anund case, we must hold that the right of the statutory tenant in respect of non-residential accommodation is heritable.

(3.) In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.