Delhi District Court
Smt. Suman Verma vs Shri Balbir Singh Kohli on 24 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA: DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE/ ARCT (WEST) : DELHI.
ARCT 84/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0476172013
Smt. Suman Verma,
Wife of Late Raj Kumar Verma,
D/o late Smt. Chander Kanta,
Resident of B93, 1st Floor, Ganesh Nagar,
P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110 018 ..... Appellant
Versus
Shri Balbir Singh Kohli,
Son of Late Shri Lakhmir Singh Kohli,
Resident of House No. 2596, 2nd Floor,
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Hudson Lane,
Kingsway Camp, New Delhi 110 029 ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.09.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 21.04.2014
Date of pronouncement of : 24.07.2014
Judgment
JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall dispose off an appeal instituted on 19.09.2013 by the appellant Suman Verma daughter of late Smt. Chander Kanta against the respondent Shri Balbir Singh Kohli, ARCT84/2013 Page No.1of11 whereby, the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 of the learned CCJcumARC (West) in Eviction Petition No. 92/11/05, whereby, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the appellant as the applicant therein seeking to be impleaded in substitution of Smt. Chander Kanta, the deceased mother of the applicant, who was substituted as legal heir of the deceased respondent Govind Lal, vide order dated 16.08.2013, was dismissed.
The records of the learned CCJcumARC (West) have been requisitioned and perused. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who has filed the reply opposing the petition. Written submissions have also been submitted on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that reply to the appeal on behalf of the respondent, incorporates all the submissions sought to be made.
A perusal of the records of the Eviction Petition No. 92/11/2005 indicates that the petition was filed by the petitioner thereof i.e. the present respondent against Shri Govind Lal son of Shri Chander Bhan seeking eviction of Shri Govind Lal son of Shri Chander Bhan from the premises i.e. shop bearing No. 4, in premises No. 28/1, Double Storey, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi under Section 14 ARCT84/2013 Page No.2of11
(i)(a)(b)(c)(j)(k) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended.
Vide order dated 04.12.2007 in view of the demise of the respondent Shri Govind Lal on 06.07.2007, the wife of the deceased respondent was allowed to be impleaded as sole legal heir of the deceased respondent as there was no other legal heir.
The record also indicates that vide order dated 20.05.2008, the application of Smt. Chander Kanta, wife of Shri Chander Bhan, the mother of the deceased original tenant i.e. Govind Lal was allowed to be impleaded as a party as respondent No.2, as tenancy was admittedly non residential inheritable. That applicant/ appellant Smt. Suman Verma is the daughter of the deceased Smt. Chander Kanta who was allowed to be substituted as legal heir of the deceased respondent i.e. Shri Govind Lal, is not disputed.
The contention that has been raised on behalf of the landlord is to the effect that after the death of Shri Govind Lal in terms of Section 2(l) (iii) Explanation (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Govind Lal, being alone, the right to continue in tenancy revised only to Smt. Lalita and was personal to her and that after the death of Smt. Chander Kanta the mother of the original tenant being no rights could devolve upon the applicant / appellant her daughter.
ARCT84/2013 Page No.3of11 Interalia reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Satya Wati Sharma Vs. Union of India (2008) 5SCC 287 to contend that in the rent control legislation made applicable to Delhi from time to time, residential and non residential premises were treated at par for all purposes and that the scheme of 1958 and does not make any substantial distinction between the residential and non residential premises and even in the grounds of eviction set out in proviso to Section 14(1) so far no such distinction has been made except clause
(d) and (e). Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Anand Niwas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi 1965 AIR Supreme Court 414 (l) to contend that a person remaining in occupation of the premises let out to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of tenancy i.e. who is called a statutory tenant is not a tenant at all and has no right or interest in the premises occupied by him and has merely the protection of the statute in that he cannot be turned out so long as he continues to pay the standard rent and permitted increases if any and performs the other conditions of the tenancy and that his right to remain in possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy is personal and is not capable of being transferred or assigned ARCT84/2013 Page No.4of11 and devolves on his death only in the manner provided by the statute.
Interalia reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case Delta International Limited Vs. Shyam Sunder Soreniwale (1998) 4 SCC 545 to the effect that a tenant protected under the statutory provisions with regard to occupation of the premises having no right to sublet or transfer the premises, cannot confer any better title.
Interalia reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent on Explanation III (b) to Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the effect "the right of every successor referred to in Explanation 1 to continue in possession after determination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not on the death of his successor, devolve on any of his heirs.
Interlia it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that even if for the sake of arguments it was considered that inheritance of non residential tenancy is to be governed by the ordinary law of succession, still the appellant could not claim to have inherited the tenancy in question from Smt. Chander Kanta. It has further been submitted by the appellant that on the death of a tenant of a commercial premises, the tenancy is inherited by his legal heirs and by no one else and that the legal heirs succeed to the tenancy rights as ARCT84/2013 Page No.5of11 joint tenants and not as co tenants and they are only statutory tenants and that in the matter of succession of tenancy rights there can be only one cycle and not repeated cycles of succession. It has thus been submitted by the respondent that once the legal heirs of the deceased tenant succeed to his tenancy rights, then there may be no further succession in the event of death of one or more of his legal heirs i.e. statutory tenants and that any interpretation to the contrary would lead to unjust and wholly irrational results as in that event the succession to the tenancy rights shall devolve in perpetuity and infinity without their being any end in sight. It has thus been submitted by the respondent that the mother of the appellant Late Smt. Chander Kanta who herself was brought on record as one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant had as many as 8 children some of whom had pre deceased her, leaving behind a large number of legal heirs in turn and they all were her legal heirs and that if the legal heirs of the deceased tenant have also to be granted protection against eviction than it would amount to virtually surrender of ownership rights of a landlord in favour of the legal heirs of a tenant and it has thus been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the tenancy rights in respect of commercial premises are heritable as per ordinary personal law of succession or the legal heirs of the deceased tenant only once and not thereafter.
ARCT84/2013 Page No.6of11 It has further been submitted on behalf respondent that in terms of order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC, the legal heirs of Smt. Chander Kanta could be brought on record only if the right to be sued against survived to them and not otherwise and that in the instant case Smt. Chander Kanta being a statutory tenant she had no right title or interest which could further devolve upon her legal heirs and her tenancy in the shop having been finally determined with her death, there was no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. ARC dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC of the appellant.
ANALYSIS On a consideration of the rival submissions and the rulings relied upon it is essential to observe that in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar reported as 1985 RLR(SC) 347, it has been categorically laid down that the provisions regulating the right to inherit the tenancy in respect of residential premises contained in Section 2(l) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended, had not applied to the heritability of commercial premises and that there is no provision regulating the rights of the heirs to inherit the tenancy rights of the tenanted in respect of the tenanted premises which is commercial ARCT84/2013 Page No.7of11 premises and thus the tenancy rights which are inheritable devolve on the heirs under the ordinary law of succession i.e. on all heirs of the deceased statutory tenant.
It is essential in relation to this aspect to advert to paragraphs 39 and 40 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar reported as 1985 RLR(SC) 347, "39. Accordingly, we hold that if the Rent Act in question defines a tenant in substance to mean a tenant who continues to remain in possession even after the termination of the contractual tenancy till a decree for eviction against him is passed, the tenant even after the determination of the tenancy continues 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. The heirs of the deceased tenant in the absence of any provision in the Rent 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. As the protection afforded by the Rent Act to a tenant after determination of the tenancy and to his heirs on the death of such tenant is a creation of the Act for ARCT84/2013 Page No.8of11 the benefit of the tenants, it is open to the Legislature which provides for such protection to make appropriate provisions in the Act with regard to the nature and extent of the benefit and protection to be enjoyed and the manner in which the same is to be enjoyed. If the Legislature makes any provision in the Act limiting or restricting the benefit and the nature of the protection to be enjoyed in a specified manner by any particular class of heirs of the deceased tenant on any condition laid down being fulfilled, the benefit of the protection has necessarily to be enjoyed on the fulfilment of he condition in the manner and to the extent stipulated in the Act. The Legislature which by the Rent Act seeks to confer the benefit on the tenants and to afford protection against eviction, is perfectly competent to make appropriate provision regulating the nature of protection and the manner and extent of enjoyment of such tenancy rights after the termination of contractual tenancy of the tenant including the rights and the nature of protection of the heirs on the death of the tenant. Such appropriate provision may be made by the Legislature both with regard to the residential tenancy and commercial tenancy. It is, however, entirely for the Legislature to decide whether the Legislature will make such provision or not. In the absence of any provision regulating the right of inheritance, and the manner and extent thereof and in the absence ARCT84/2013 Page No.9of11 of any condition being stipulated with regard to he devolution of tenancy rights on the heirs on the death of the tenant, the devolution of tenancy rights must necessarily be in accordance with the ordinary law in succession.
40. In the Delhi Act, the Legislature has throught it fit to make provisions regulating the right to inherit the tenancy rights in respect of residential premises. The relevant provisions are contained in S. 2(l) (iii) of the Act. With regard to the commercial premises, the Legislature in the Act under consideration has thought it fit not to make any such provision. It may be noticed that in some Rent Acts provisions regulating heritability of commercial premises, have also been made whereas in some Rent acts no such provision either in respect of residential tenancies or commercial tenancies has been made. As in the present Act, there is no provision regulating the rights of the heirs to inherit the tenancy rights of the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises which is commercial premises, the tenancy right which is heritable devolves on the heirs under the ordinary law of succession. The tenancy right of Wasti Ram, therefore, devolves on all the heirs of Wasti Ram on his death."
Furthermore it is essential to observe that there cannot be any estoppel against law nor can there be rights that can be claimed ARCT84/2013 Page No.10of11 merely on the basis of pleadings of the parties.
In the instant case on the demise of Shri Govind Lal, the tenant in the commercial premises, of the legal heirs of Shri Govind Lal including Smt. Chander Kanta his mother in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar reported as 1985 RLR(SC) 347, became entitled to inherit the tenancy of of Mr. Govind Lal her deceased son also.
In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (West) in eviction petition No. 92/11/05 is set aside and Smt. Suman Verma is allowed to be impleaded as a party to the Eviction Petition No. 92/11/05 and allowed to be given an opportunity to defend the case. With these observations the appeal ARCT No. 84/2013 is allowed, copy of this order alongwith the trial Court records of the Ld. CCJ cum ARC (West) be returned with directions to the parties to appear before the said Ld. Court on the date 01.08.2014.
The records of ARCT No. 84/2013 be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Anu Malhotra) today this the 24th day of District & Sessions Judge/ July, 2014 ARCT(West)/Delhi ARCT84/2013 Page No.11of11