DALIP SINGH Vs. KAUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for possession has been decreed by both the courts below.

(2.) PURAN Chand was the owner of the shop, in dispute. Later on, he sold the same to Kaur Chand vide sale deed dated April 30, 1958 Meanwhile, Ajit Singh, the tenant thereon, died leaving behind his widow, sons and daughters. The plaintiff filed the presents suit on October 21, 1972, against them and the brother of the deceased, Dalip Singh, who was in occupation of the shop, in dispute, alleging them to be the trespassers thereon after the death of Ajit Singh, tenant. According to him, Ajit Singh was a statutory tenant and on his death the tenancy came to an end as it was not heritable. In the written statement, the plea taken was that the tenancy was for the joint Hindu family comprising of Ajit Singh and the defendants and that the said Ajit Singh acted as the Karta of the family. It was further pleaded that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the civil court had nor jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court found that Ajit Singh was a statutory tenant and that the tenancy was not for the joint Hindu family comprising of Ajit Singh and the defendants, as alleged. It was also found that the statutory tenancy as such was not heritable. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated February 13, 1975. In appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) THAT matter stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Gordhan Dass v. Dhan Mala Devi, AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 247 wherein reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Damadilal v. Parashram, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2229. It was held therein that the statutory tenancy was heritable. In Gordhan Dass's case (supra) it was observed that one the heirs of a deceased tenant inherited tenancy rights under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, they became tenants under the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and that they were liable to be ejected from the premises under the said Act and not under a decree of the Civil Court. To the same effect is the law laid down in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1421 of 1982 (Swami Someshwaranande Udasi v. Darshan Singh) decided on October 17, 1984. However, on behalf of the plaintiff it was urged that in any case Dalip Singh, being the brother of Ajit Singh, deceased, could not claim himself to be his heir under law and his plea that the shop was taken on rent for the joint Hindu family business was negatived by both the courts below. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the son of Ajit Singh deceased named Gurcharan Singh was never working on the shop in dispute alongwith his father and, therefore, brother of Ajit Singh, deceased, had been doing business in the shop, in dispute, along with the deceased and, therefore, he was entitled to continue as such. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Manmohan Nath v. Smt. Kesra Devi, 1980 (1) Rent Control Journal 437.