TIRVENI DEVI Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3452 of 1982 and 189 of 1983 are directed against the same judgment of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) and are thus being disposed of through this common order. The following undisputed facts furnish the backdrop of the case.

(2.) Babu Lal respondent in both the petitions brought an ejectment petition under S.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on Dec. 26, 1972 against Chatur Bhuj, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 3452 and Siri Narain petitioner in the other petition inter alia on the grounds that Chatur Bhuj was a statutory tenant under him in the shop situated in Naya Bazar, Narnaul and was guilty of non-payment of rent and subletting the said shop to Siri Narain petitioner. These respondents tendered the rent due on the first date of hearing before the Rent Controller and with regard to subletting, their common plea was that they were only working as partners in the demised premises. The Rent Controller accepted the plea of subletting as advanced by the landlord and ordered the ejectment of the respondents on Dec. 23, 1981. By the time this order was passed by the Rent Controller, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act stood repealed by the Act which came into force with effect from April 27, 1973. Chatur Bhuj in whose favour the premises had been let out vide rent note Exhibit RW. 6/1 dated 11th Asadh, 2006 Bk. (June 24, 1949) for a period of eleven months only, died on April 27, 1982, i.e., about four months after the order of ejectment was passed against him. The present petitioners in C. R. No. 3452 who were his legal heirs filed, along with Siri Narain petitioner, an appeal before the Appellate Authority on Sept. 15, 1982. The respondent landlord Babu Lal on putting in appearance before the said authority took the plea by way of preliminary objection that Chatur Bhuj, the statutory tenant in the demised premises, admittedly a non-residential building, having died prior to the filing of the appeal, had left no heritable interest in favour of the petitioners in C. R. No. 3452 and thus they could not maintain that appeal. Similarly, qua Siri Narain his objection was that on his own showing he was working in the demised premises as a partner with Chatur Bhuj and with the latter's death, the alleged partnership too came to an automatic end and thus he too could not maintain the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. These pleas of Babu Lal respondent have been accepted by the Appellate Authority vide the judgment which is now the subject-matter of these two petitions.

(3.) In C. R. No. 3452, the solitary submission of Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, is that the Appellate Authority has gone wrong in going into the question of heritability of the interest of a statutory tenant in a non-residential property at this stage and the only course which could possibly and legally be adopted by the said authority was to treat the petitioners as legal representatives of Chatur Bhuj deceased and allow them to maintain their appeal. According to the learned counsel, it was only thereafter that the Appellate Authority could go into the question of inherited rights of the petitioners and could examine the question of maintainability of the appeal. He, however, concedes that in view of the definition of 'tenant' in S.2(h) of the Act and the judgments of this Court, i.e., Sarwan Kumar v. Pyare Lal, (1979) 1 Rent CJ 3 and Daljit Singh v. Gurmukh Dass, AIR 1981 Punj and Har 394, no right of inheritance was available to the petitioners qua the demised premises.