Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As per averments made in the eviction petition the premises were given to the single tenant Shri Krishan Lal who died in the year 1986 and after his death the tenancy was inherited by Smt. Rakesh the respondent No. 1.

It has however been stated in the eviction petition that after the death of Shri Krishan Lal S/o Late Shri Chander Bhan in the year 1986, Thakur Das inherited the tenancy and after his death Mrs. Rakesh wife of Late Shri Thakur Das is the tenant in the premises and she further sublet the premises to the sub tenants Suman Verma (respondent No. 2) Chander Kanta wife of Late Shri Krishan Lal ARCT­16/2013 Page No.2of25 (respondent No. 3). Jatin kumar Chouhan and Chander Kala wife of Late Shri Chander Bhan without the consent of the petitioner. During the course of the proceedings before the Ld. CCJ cum ARC, the respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 i.e. Smt. Rakesh wife of Late Shri Thakur Das and Shri Satish Kumar and Smt. Chander Kala were proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.12.2006. Through the written statement that was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Smt. Suman Verma wife of Late Shri Raj Verma and Smt. Chander Kanta wife of Late Shri Krishan Lal, it was submitted through para 3(b) thereof that "the premises was originally let out to Shri Krishan Lal and on his death the tenancy of the premises was changed in favour of his brother Shri Thakur Das that Shri Thakur Das died in 1996 and the tenancy of the premises devolved upon the legal heirs of the deceased Thakur Dass namely his widow Smt. Rakesh (respondent No. 1), his minor son and mother of the deceased Smt. Chander Kanta (respondent No. 3) that it was further submitted through the written statement paragraph 3(b) of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that by virtue of the family arrangement Smt. Rakesh orally surrendered the tenancy rights on her behalf and on behalf of the minor son in the shop in favour of the mother of the deceased and this fact was brought to the notice of the landlady Smt. Prem Kaur on 17.01.1998 and also vide ARCT­16/2013 Page No.3of25 reply dated 15.01.2001. It was further stated through the written statement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 13.04.2006 that Smt. Chander Kanta (respondent No. 3) was aged 75 years and was being assisted by her daughter Smt. Suman Verma (respondent No. 2), in running the business activity in the shop.

Vide the appeal it has been submitted that no eviction order could have been passed against the dead person without bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased and that said eviction order was thus illegally and liable to be set aside.

The appellant has further submitted that it was wrongly observed by the Ld. CCJ cum ARC that it was an admitted case of the parties that the premises was let out to Shri Krishan Lal by the mother of the respondent on 25.06.1999 and after demise of Shri Krishan Lal the premises was inherited by Shri Thakur Dass and after his death by ARCT­16/2013 Page No.10of25 Smt. Rakesh (respondent No. 1) and his minor son without appreciating the averments made in the written statement that the premises were originally let out to Shri Krishan Lal by the mother of the respondent and on his death the tenancy of the premises was changed by her in favour of his brother Shri Thakur Dass and it did not devolve upon him and that Shri Thakur Dass died in 1996 and the tenancy of the premises devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. his widow Smt. Rakesh (respondent No. 1 to the eviction petition) his minor son and mother of the deceased Thakur Dass i.e. Smt. Chander Kanta respondent No. 3 to the eviction petition and by virtue of the family arrangements between them Smt. Rakesh orally surrendered the tenancy rights on her behalf and on behalf of the minor son in favour of the mother of the deceased Smt. Chander Kanta and the fact was brought to the notice of the landlady Smt. Prem Kaur on 17.01.1998 and also in reply dated 15.01.2001 and that Smt. Chander Kanta was aged 75 years and was being assisted by her daughter Smt. Suman Verma the appellant and that the eviction order thus suffered from material irregularities and illegalities and was liable to be set aside and reversed and that the case be remanded back for trial afresh after bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Chander Kanta including the appellant.

It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been misconstrued by the Ld. CCJ cum ARC without appreciating that the said provisions are applicable only to residential premises and that commercial tenancy is inheritable and devolves as per Hindu Law of succession and the restriction imposed by the regulator in Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable only to residential premises as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar reported as 1985 RLR(SC) 347, and thus the impugned eviction order dated 24.01.2013 was liable to be set aside and that it had to be held that Smt. Chander Kanta succeeded to the tenancy rights alone after the death of her son Shri Thakur Dass on account of surrender of tenancy rights by his widow Smt. Rakesh and ARCT­16/2013 Page No.12of25 that the dependency of the deceased was not relevant in the instant case and that Smt. Chander Kanta succeeded to the tenancy rights after the death of Shri Thakur Dass in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

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."