Delhi District Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Kiran Bala on 31 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
MISC. DJ NO. 215/2019
DINESH KUMAR
S/O LATE JAGAN NATH
R/O B244, (934), ARJUN NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
NEW DELHI110003
... APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF
IN THE MATTER OF :
CS DJ NO. 1146/2018
DINESH KUMAR
S/O LATE JAGAN NATH
R/O B244, (934), ARJUN NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
NEW DELHI110003
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIRAN BALA
W/O LATE SH. PRADEEP KUMAR
R/O C82, (1033), FIRST FLOOR,
SHIV GALI, NANAK CHAND BASTI,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR,
NEW DELHI110003.
...DEFENDANT
Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 1 of 8 pages
ORDER
1. An application for review under Order XXXVII (sic) read with Section 151 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019 in the above mentioned suit whereby the suit for possession of the plaintiff / applicant was dismissed.
2. It is submitted that applicant / plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and damages against the respondent / defendant in respect of suit premises bearing No. C82 (1033), Shiv Gali, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. The learned court vide judgment dated 24.10.2019 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The short point for consideration is whether in case of death of a statutory tenant of residential tenancy only, the same is inheritable as per section 2 (l) Sub Section (iii) of DRC Act or whether both in case of contractual tenancy and statutory tenancy, the residential tenancy is inheritable as per Section 2 (l) (iii) of DRC Act. It is submitted that this court has held that only in case of statutory residential tenancy the same is inheritable under Section 2 (l) (iii) of DRC Act but in case of contractual residential tenancy, the same is inheritable as per the applicable personal succession laws. It is submitted that this finding is against the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is liable to be reviewed.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff has relied upon V. Dhanpal Chettier vs Yasodai Ammal 1979 (2) RCR 352 to argue that Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 2 of 8 pages both contractual and statutory tenancy are inheritable as per section 2 (l)
(iii) of DRC Act.
4. The respondent was duly served but no formal reply was filed. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent has relied upon Gian Devi Anand vs Jeevan Kumar & Ors. 27 (1985) DLT 460 to argue that the judgment of V. Dhanpal Chettier (supra) has been explained to the extent of point under consideration in the present review application.
5. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My observations are as under :
6. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession against the defendant on the ground that she was the wife of the predeceased son of original tenant Ram Lal and on the demise of Ram Lal with whom she had continued to reside after the date of her husband, she did not qualify to be a tenant under Section 2 (l) (iii) and was liable to be evicted by way of a civil suit for possession. Vide judgment dated 24.10.2019, it was held that since the tenancy of original tenant Ram Lal was not terminated during his life time, the tenancy rights would be inherited by the legal heirs as per succession laws. The defendant being the wife of the predeceased son of Ram Lal, she would not be governed by Section 2 (l)
(iii) which restricts the line of inheritance of legal heirs for statutory tenants in respect of residential premises. The defendant being the classI heir of original contractual tenant Ram Lal became a tenant in her own Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 3 of 8 pages right and was continued to be protected by Rent law and was not a trespasser liable to be evicted under General law. The applicant has sought review of the judgment by claiming that the defendant was liable for eviction.
7. The short point for consideration is whether the defendant who became a tenant after the demise of original tenant inherited the tenancy as per Succession Law or as per Section 2 (l) (iii) of DRC Act. This aspect had been discussed at length in the case of Gian Devi Anand (supra) by the Apex Court. It was observed that so long as a contractual tenancy remains subsisting, the contractual tenancy creates heritable rights and on the death of a contractual tenancy, the heirs and legal representatives step into the position of the contractual tenant and in the same way on the death of a landlord, the heirs and legal representatives of a landlord become entitled to all the rights and privileges of the contractual tenancy and also come under all the obligations under the contractual tenancy. A valid termination of the contractual tenancy puts an end to the contractual relationship. The landlord then becomes entitled under the law of the land (Transfer of Property Act) to recover possession of the premises from the tenant and under the general law, the tenants are hardly in a position to resist the eviction, once the contractual tenancy has been duly determined. However, because of scarcity of accommodation and high rise in the rents due to various factors, the landlords were in a position to exploit the situation for unjustified personal gains to the serious detriment of the Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 4 of 8 pages helpless tenants. It became imperative for the legislature to intervene to protect the tenants against harassment and exploitation by the veracious landlords and appropriate legislation by way of Rent Acts came to be passed in all the States and Union Territories.
8. It was further observed in the said judgment that the rent laws were enacted to protect the tenants against harassment and exploitation by landlords, safeguarding at the same time the legitimate interests of the landlords. The Rent Acts seek to preserve social harmony and promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of the tenants mainly and at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the landlords. Even though the rights of landlords and tenants are sought to be balanced, but rent laws undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose benefit the Rent Act was essentially passed.
9. The rights and the position of a tenant, who is the contractual tenant or a statutory tenant has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of Rent Act. As per Rent Act, the determination of a contractual tenancy in view of definition of tenant, does not bring about any change to the status or legal position of the tenant; the tenant notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises. This interest or estate which the tenant under the Act, despite termination of the contractual tenancy, continues to enjoy creates a heritable interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary. The amendment to the definition of 'tenant' by Act 18 of 1976 Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 5 of 8 pages introducing particularly 2 (l) (iii) does not in any way mitigate against the view.
10. In Dhanpal Chettier (supra), the Apex Court had made a reference to various rent laws of different States and have concluded that the notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was not necessary for initiating the proceedings under the rent laws. Whether a person was a contractual tenant or a statutory tenant by virtue of termination of his tenancy vide a notice under Section 106, he continues to have same protection under the rent laws and this distinction loses its significance. The service of notice is a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get the tenant evicted even after determination of tenancy.
11. This aspect was explained in the case of Gian Devi Anand (supra) that subsection (iii) with all the three Explanations thereto is not in any way inconsistent with or contrary to subsection (ii) of section 2(l) which unequivocally states that tenant includes any person continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy. In the absence of the provision contained in subsection 2(l)(iii), the heritable interest of the heirs of the statutory tenant would devolve on all the heirs of the so called statutory tenant on his death. Subsection (iii) of Section 2(l) however seeks to restrict this right in so far as the residential premises are concerned. The heritability of the statutory tenancy which otherwise flows from the Act, is restricted in case of residential premises Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 6 of 8 pages only to the heirs mentioned in Section 2 (l) (iii) and the heirs therein are entitled to remain in possession and to enjoy the protection under the Act in the manner and to the extent indicated in subsection 2(l)(iii).
12. In the aforesaid judgment as discussed above, it has been clearly brought forth that whether it is contractual tenancy or statutory tenancy, the rights of the legal heirs of the tenants are inheritable. However, in case of contractual tenancy, the rights of the legal heirs are as per the Law of Succession, but in case of statutory tenant of residential premises, the right of inheritance would be limited to legal heirs as mentioned in Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act.
13. In the present case as well the premises had been let out for residential purposes and house rent receipts were being issued. That being the case, having concluded in the judgment that deceased Ram Lal had died as a contractual tenant, the tenancy would not be inherited by the legal heirs as limited by Section 2(l)(iii) but would go as per the Succession Law. The conclusions arrived at in the judgment are in accordance with the law as laid down in the case of V. Dhanpal Chettier (supra) and Gian Devi Anand (supra). There has been no error in concluding that a tenant as legal heir of contractual tenancy became a tenant in her own right and thus, was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The contention of the applicant that defendant was covered by Section 2 (l) (iii) and thus, did not inherit the tenancy rights and because a trespasser against whom civil suit was maintainable, was Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 7 of 8 pages not accepted for the reasons explained in the judgment.
14. There is no error apparent on the face of record calling for review of the judgment. The application is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this 31st day of January 2020 (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi Misc. DJ No. 215/2019 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Kiran Bala Page 8 of 8 pages