Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In our opinion, therefore, the deceased was holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the determination of the lease in November, 1958, and he became a tenant from month to month.

15. The next question is whether upon the death of the deceased his interest as a tenant from month to month passed to his heirs. It appears to be the settled view of this court that the interest of a tenant from month to month holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act is heritable. One of the recent decisions on the point is Ram Nath v. Neta, A.I.R. 1962 All. 604. In that case the lease expired On October 24, 1916, but the tenant continued in possession. The court held that under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, he became a tenant from month to month. On his death in 1922, the rights under the monthly tenancy devolved on his son. Reliance was placed on Raman Lal v. Bhagwan Das, A.I.R. 1950 All. 583 and Anwarali v. Jamini Lal Roy, A.I.R. 1940 Cal. 89. In Raman Lal this court held that by reason of the terms of the lease a month to month tenancy could not be implied under the law, that the lessee at no time held over, and, therefore, could not be said to have become a tenant from month to month, that he was only a tenant at will, that the interest of a tenant at will is not heritable but determined by his death and, therefore, no interest passed to his son. In Anwarali the Calcutta High Court held that while a tenancy at will was determined by the death of either the tenant or the landlord, a tenancy from month to month resulting from a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act was transferable and heritable.