NARENDRA NATH SUPAKAR Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the defendant/appellant/petitioner against the order dated 28th June, 2005, passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No. 135 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate Court while held that after the death of 1st appellant, his compounder/2nd appellant is not entitled to proceed with the case, dismissed the appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 09 of 1998 in the Court of learned Munsif against Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta and his compounder Narendra Nath Supakar (petitioner herein) for evicting them from Schedule 'A" premises of the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 7,500.00 and on the ground of personal necessity as also on the ground of subletting the suit premises. The plaintiff/1st respondent claimed to have purchased the scheduled land and building from Ex -owner Sri Bhola Nath Bhagat through registered sale deed dated 26th June, 1997 whereinafter, the vendor of the plaintiff informed the defendants regarding sale of the building and requested them to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff from July, 1997. It has been alleged that the rent was not paid. Further ease of the plaintiff/1st respondent herein is that she required the tenanted premises for her personal use of occupation, as she has a big family and her sons are sitting idle. The plaintiff wanted to settled them in business.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Gain Devi An and V/s. Jeevan Kumar and others, - - - - . The said case relates to statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises, situated at Delhi. In the said case, a question arose as to whether a tenant even after termination of the tenancy continued to have an estate or interest in the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights both in respect of residential premises and commercial premises are heritable or not. Having noticed the provisions of Sec.2(1)(ii)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Supreme Court held that the heirs of the deceased -tenant, in absence of any provision under the Rent Control Act, to the contrary, will step into the position of the deceased -tenant and all the rights and obligations of the deceased -tenant, including the protection afforded to the deceased -tenant under the Act will devolve on the heirs of the deceased -tenant.