RAM PYARI Vs. DUNI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th July, 1976 of Shri S.C. Jain, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that Duni Chand, the deceased respondent herein filed suit for possession against the appellants on the plea that he was the owner/landlord of the property No. 5222-24, Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj that Shri Harnam Dass, deceased was occupying a portion of the said property which comprised of a shop and a miani as a tenant of the respondent/plaintiff. The tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 28th February, 1967 by serving a notice upon him dated 20th January, 1967. Shri Harnam Dass continued in possession of the premises as a statutory tenant and he died on 18th December, 1970. Ram Nath and Kedar Nath, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Harnam Dass and their mother, Smt. Ram Pyari, appellant No. 1 retained the possession of the premises after his death. The suit was filed on the plea that possession of the appellants was illegal and unauthorised and they were trespassers and they have no right to remain in possession of the premises after the death of Harnam Dass. The appellant/defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, pleading, inter alia, that suit was not maintainable in the present form and there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. It was also denied that legal and valid notice was ever served upon Shri Harnam Dass etc. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

(2.) THE Trial Court decided issue No. 2 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and issue No. 3 against the appellants and decreed the suit of the respondents with costs vide order dated 17th December, 1974. The appellants felt aggrieved by the judgment and filed an appeal in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi to impugn the same. The first Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial court and dismissed the appeal with costs. The present second appeal as a consequence has been filed to impugn the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether statutory tenancy is heritable and whether after the death of Harnam Dass the appellants are entitled to inherit tenancy rights from (sic) after the death of Harnam Dass the appellants were not entitled to inherit the same. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was terminated after the death of Harnam Dass. This finding of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Court held that after the service of the notice of termination of the tenancy the status of the tenant in the present circumstances becomes that of the statutory tenant and after the death of the statutory tenant, his heirs cannot inherit the tenancy rights. The question of law raised in the appeal is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. Jeevan Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796 : 1985(1) RCR 459 (SC). The learned Judge has clearly held that the statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises was heritable and heirs of the statutory tenant are entitled to protection against eviction as afforded to a tenant under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In view of the settled position of law, this appeal is allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court are set aside and the suit of the respondent who is now represented by his legal heirs is dismissed.