SMT. MANGLI Vs. BHAGAT RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Indu was the tenant of the premises in dispute under the Respondents He died in 1969 leaving behind his son Ram Kishan and Mangli Petitioner -his widow. The Respondents filed on application for adjustment against Ram Kishan on the ground that he being the son of the statutory tenant was not entitled to inherit the tenancy right - left by Indu. This suit was decreed.

(2.) MANGLI Petitioner has now filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Respondents on the ground that she being the widow of Indu was entitled to remain in possession of the premises in dispute under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 19/3 (hereinafter called the Act). She applied for an ad interim injudction(sic) which was declined to her by both the learned Courts below. In this petition, it has been argued before me that under Section 2 (h) of the Act the word "tenant" has been given an enlarged definition and Section 24 of the Act gives protection of the earlier law to the proceedings which are already pending at the original stage or at the appellate stage. Since the Petitioner was not a party to any proceedings which might have been instituted prior to the coming into force of the Act, she could not be ejected from the premises in dispute save in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(3.) THE second case relied upon on behalf of the Respondents is Dev Raj Bawa v. Om Parkash Gupta, (1974) 77 P Lk 648, decided by Muni Lal Verma, J. The facts of this case are also distinguishable. The landlord had filed a suit for possession of the shop in dispute against the heirs of the statutory tenant and for mesne profits on the ground that after the death of the statutory tenant the heirs were only trespassers The learned Judge held that the rights of the landlord were protected under Section 24 of the Act.