MOHD. USMAN Vs. MST. SURAYYA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd September 1989 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in execution suit filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows:-

(3.) ON the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and ors., 27 (1985) DLT 460 while considering the question whether the right of tenancy in respect of commercial premises is heritable has observed that there is no provisions regulating the rights of the heirs to inherit the tenancy rights of the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises which is commercial. The tenancy right which is inheritable devolves on the heirs under the ordinary law of succession. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that u/s. 40(1) of the Principles of Mahomedan Law applicable to Mahomedans in India, the heirs succeed to the estate of a deceased Mahomedan in common in Specific shares. Thus, the observations of the Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey's case (supra) are not applicable in the case of Mahomedan tenants. Learned counsel further, submitted that the respondents ought to have been given an opportunity to prove that the documents were not fabricated. Mst. Surayya Begum as a daughter of Khalil Raza was entitled to inherit the tenancy right in the premises in dispute and since she was not a party to the previous litigation, her possession could not be disturbed.