ROMESH KUMAR Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be considered in this revision is whether production of a succession certificate is necessary for the recovery of the arrears of rent due to a deceased landlord in respect of property other than land used for Agricultural purposes. For answer to this question, one must necessarily refer to section 4 of the succession certificate Act 1977 section 4 reads thus: -

(2.) FOR purposes of this section the word debt has been given a specific meaning. It includes any debt except rent, revenue profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. It necessarily follows that the word debt would include that rent due in respect of urban property. In the circumstances, the production of a succession certificate would be necessary for the recovery of arrears of rent due to a deceased landlord in respect of a shop as in the present case. But no such certificate would be necessary in respect of the recovery of rent which might have fallen due to the heirs of the deceased landlord after his death, the view to the contrary held by the trial court is clearly erroneous.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Chief Justice who first heard this revision, it seems to have been argued that the definition of the word debt in sub -section 2 was not comprehensive enough to include rent due in respect of premises other than the land used for agricultural purposes. This has prompted the Honble Chief Justice to make a reference to a larger bench. In our opinion the definition is much too clear to admit of any equivocation. In that view, the reference is not well -conceived.