KRISHAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop in dispute forms parts of property No. B-IV-417 which was an evacuee property and purchased by plaintiff Manohar Lal in an auction vide sale certificate Exhibit P-2, which declared him its owner with effect from June 23, 1964. Alleging that the defendant appellants were in its unauthorised occupation, he filed this suit for the possession of the shop in dispute. The defence set up was that the defendants had taken the said shop on lease from the Custodian and continued to hold the same as such after its sale to the plaintiff by virtue of the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The trial Court negatived the plea of the defendants on the ground that the original occupants namely Kanshi Ram and Ram Lal had died and even if they are held to be the statutory tenants the statutory tenancy being not heritable, they could not be deemed to be the tenants and were, therefore, in wrongful possession of the shop in dispute. On appeal, the finding of the trial Court and its decree were upheld by the learned District Judge vide judgment dated November 4, 1972. Still dissatisfied, the defendants have come up in this second appeal.

(3.) When the case was decided by the Courts below, the view prevailing was that the statutory tenancy was not heritable, but since the decision of the Supreme court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, 1976 AIR(SC) 2229, it has been consistently held by this Court - the latest being a Division Bench decision in Mohan Lal v. Ram Dass and others,1980 1 RCJ 607, that the rights of a statutory tenant are heritable by his heirs. This ground is, therefore, no more available to hold that defendant-appellants are not in occupation of the shop in dispute as tenants.