SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. SURESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 23.9.2013 which set asides the order dated 11.5.2012 of the trial court dismissing the suit as not maintainable in the civil court on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and therefore only Delhi Rent Control Act had jurisdiction.

(2.) In Delhi where the premises are governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, a tenant is defined under the Act in Section 2(l). As per the various judicial pronouncements, whereas a residential tenancy is inherited only by a limited number of legal heirs, and that too only such legal heirs living with the deceased tenant at the time of his death and financially dependent upon him, a commercial tenancy is inheritable by all the legal heirs. Therefore when the legal heir of the deceased does not fall in the definition of a tenant under Section 2(l), he does not inherit the tenancy and does not become a tenant of the landlord under the DRC Act. The present suit was a suit alleging that the tenancy was a residential tenancy, the said contractual residential tenancy was terminated by a legal notice, and that the tenant did not leave behind any legal heirs who were residing with the tenant at the time of his death and nor were they financially dependent on the deceased inasmuch as the original tenant had only one son who was conducting a separate business at separate premises and not living with his father-tenant.

(3.) A reading of the order of the trial court which is of about just 12 odd lines shows that none of the aspects with respect to Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act stated above have been discussed and the suit was dismissed in limine only on the ground that the rent was Rs.20 per month. Obviously, this was a wrong order because disputed questions of fact as to who were the legal heirs, as to whether notice was served terminating the contractual tenancy, whether the legal heirs were residing with the deceased tenant and whether such legal heir was financially dependent on the tenant are disputed questions which required trial. Obviously, the trial court failed to understand that even if the rent is only Rs.20 per month, in case such a tenancy is a residential tenancy, then if the tenant dies after the contractual tenancy is terminated, and the legal heirs as specified in Section 2(l) of the Rent Control Act are not living with the deceased tenant and are not financially dependent on the deceased tenant, then the legal heirs are not tenants under DRT Act and a suit for possession is maintainable against them in the civil court. There thus as per the suit plaint existed disputed questions of fact, which the plaintiff on proving by leading evidence would have been entitled to a decree for possession from the civil court, and such suits therefore could not have been dismissed at the threshold simply on the ground that rent is Rs.20 per month only.