Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This is because such a tenant cannot dispose of this type of tenancy by assignment, subletting or otherwise parting with possession oil the premises. In the present case if upon his death Gaini Ram deceased was in possession of the premises under a contractual tenancy, there can be no two opinions that the tenancy devolved upon his heirs according to the law of succession on the other hand, if he was a statutory tenant of the premises, upon his death his right came to end, and nothing passed on to his heirs by devolution. 

 

 It is common ground between the parties
that the premises were let out on monthly rent
and the tenancy was a tenancy from month to
month.    It was obviously not a tenancy-at-will.

So if Giani Ram deceased was holding the premises under a contractual tenancy, the same devolved upon his heirs upon his death other-wise not.

6. There is no denying the fact that initially the tenancy of the premises in favour of Giani Ram deceased was a contractual tenancy. It is nobody's case that it determined according to ordinary law during the life time of Giani Ram deceased. There is no allegation that a notice to quit according to law was given by the plaintiff to the deceased. The contractual tenancy, therefore, continued from the beginning right upto the death of Giani Ram deceased. No legal incidents under the ordinary law of tenancy, happened, which determined the contractual tenancy in favour of Giani Ram deceased before his death.

10. In the present case it has not been shown that the contractual tenancy between the plaintiff and Giani Ram deceased determined at any time before the death of the latter. Upon his death the tenancy rights devolved upon the heirs of Giani Ram deceased, but obviously continued under the same contractual tenancy between the parties. At no time has the tenancy become a purely statutory tenancy.

11. There remains only one other contention on behalf of the plaintiff for consideration and that is with reference to the definition of the term 'tenant' as given in Section 2(d) of the Act It says:

" 'tenant' means a person who takes on rent any premises for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person dependent on him but does not include a collector of rents or any middleman who takes or has taken any premises on lease with a view to sub-letting them to another person."

It is contended that the contesting defendants are not tenants within this definition. It appears to me that this is misconceived, for if it was a statutory tenancy, they are in possession of the premises without any right and no question of their being tenants under the definition arises. On the contrary, if, as it has been found, they are in possession of the premises under the contractual tenancy, which has devolved upon them upon the death of the last tenant then they are persons who stand in the position of one "who takes on rent any premises for his own occupation" and so they are tenants within the scope of that definition.