HARISH CHAND Vs. KIRPA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The precise question which calls for determination by this Full Bench is in the following terms :-

(2.) The few skeleton facts which deserve to be noticed to unravel the controversy raised in this petition under S.15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Haryana Act') are as under : Kirpa Ram respondent is the landlord of the non-residential building in dispute occupied by Om Parkash (now deceased) as a "statutory tenant". The landlord respondent filed an application on 6-5-1980 for the ejectment of the tenant under S.13 of the Act which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide its order dated 31-5-1982. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller on 11-6-1982. However, during the pendency of the appeal Om Prakash, the tenant, died on 17-9-1982. The present petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of Om Prakash deceased applied to the Appellate Authority for their being impleaded as appellants in place of the deceased tenant. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22-9-1983 held that the tenancy of the non-residential building in dispute was not heritable and that the petitioners had no right to be impleaded as appellants in place of Om Parkash deceased. Their prayer for being impleaded as legal representatives of Om Parkash was declined and the appeal was also dismissed. Against this order, the present revision petition was filed which came up for hearing before J.M.Tandon, J., on 15-11-1984. It was contended by the petitioners that they had a right to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased tenant and reliance was placed on Hari Chand v. Banwari Lal, AIR 1981 Punj and Har 352. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord respondent relying on Gordhan Dass v. Smt. Dhan Mala Devi Jain, AIR 1984 Punj and Har 247, contended that the tenancy of a non-residential building in the State of Haryana was not heritable under the Haryana Act. In view of the rival contentions, Tandon, J., considered it appropriate that the revision petition should be heard by a larger Bench. The case then came up before the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and myself on 25-9-1985. In view of the recent Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court to the contrary reported as Mateshwar Dayal v. Om Parkash, (1984) 2 Rent LR 678, it was found that the judgment in the latter case required reconsideration. Accordingly, the case was directed to be placed before a Full Bench and that is how this case is before us. 2A. It may be stated right at the outset that in Mateshwar Dayal's case (supra), it was the learned counsel for the heirs of the statutory tenant who conceded that the tenancy of a non-residential building in the State of Haryana was not heritable. The Division Bench in the said case recorded its decision on this concession of the learned counsel. However, there are a number of Single Bench judgments of this Court to which reference will be made later which hold that the statutory tenancy with respect to a shop situated in the State of Haryana is not heritable in view of the definition of the term "tenant" as given in S.2(h) of the Haryana Act. It is thus necessary to examine the above question in some detail in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Gian Devi Anand's case (supra).

(3.) Before coming into force of the Haryana Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant qua buildings in urban areas in the State of Haryana was governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Punjab Act'). Section 2(i) of the Punjab Act contains the definition of the term 'tenant', the relevant portion of which is as under :-