Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It is not in dispute that Late Shri B.N. Khanna was inducted in the suit property as a tenant. He was occupying the suit property as a tenant and not in any other independent right to the property. His occupation in the suit property as a tenant has been duly proved from the depositions of PW1 and PW2 wherein categorical assertions have been made in this regard. Defendant no.2 has not denied that Late Shri B.N. Khanna was occupying the suit property as a tenant. Rent of the property being less than `3,500/- is also not in dispute. However, case of the plaintiff is that after death of Shri B.N. Khanna in the year 1992 her widow Smt. Prakashvati Khanna became statutory tenant under Section 2 (l) (iii) of the Act since the tenancy was terminated during the life time of Shri B.N. Khanna vide notice dated 13 th February, 1981 (Ex.PW1/5) and the daughters of Shri B.N. Khanna including defendant no. 2 were married and not living with Shri B.N. Khanna at the time of his death. Case of defendant no.2 is that Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was accepted by the plaintiff as tenant in her individual capacity during the life time of Shri B.N. Khanna, inasmuch as, rent was accepted from her, thus, Smt. Prakashvati Khanna became contractual tenant in respect of the suit premises even during the life time of Shri B.N. Khanna. Accordingly, death of Shri B.N. Khanna on 7th May, 1992 did not make any difference on the tenancy rights of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna. Thus, all the legal heirs of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna became statutory tenant in the suit property after her death. It is also the case of defendant no.2 that suit property was let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose, thus, Section 2(l) (iii) was not attracted and tenancy rights devolved on all the legal heirs by applying general law of inheritance. In nutshell case of defendant no.2 is that she is lawful tenant in the suit property and not an unauthorized occupant as alleged by the plaintiff. According to her suit is not maintainable.

(b) the right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve on any of his heirs"

18. Upon service of notice of termination being Ex.PW1/5 on Shri B.N. Khanna contractual tenancy came to an end, however, he continued to enjoy protection, as available to a tenant paying less than `3,500/- as rent under the Act. His status was rendered to be that of statutory tenant from a contractual tenant. A perusal of afore-quoted section makes it clear that in case of a statutory tenant, if the tenant, at the time of his death, leaves behind a widow who was ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, she alone will get a right to inherit the statutory tenancy to the exclusion of all other heirs, and that too for her own lifetime only. This right does not pass on to any other heir or legal representative of the deceased-tenant. In this case, Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was living with Late Shri B.N. Khanna at the time of his death. Defendants were married and were not ordinarily residing with Late Shri B.N. Khanna. Their casual visits will not bring them within the ambit and scope of meaning of „ordinarily living in the premises as envisaged under Section 2(l) (iii) of the Act.

22. Learned senior counsel for defendant no.2 has heavily relied on the judgment of Keshav Das and Ors vs. Prem Nath AIR 1996 Delhi 47 and Gian Devi Anand (supra), in support of her contention that tenancy rights devolved upon all the legal heirs of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna, in accordance with law of inheritance. A careful perusal of these judgments, reliance whereupon has been placed by the learned senior counsel, makes it clear that such a view has been propounded in respect of commercial tenancies and does not include residential tenancies, which are governed by Section 2 (l) of the Act.

23. The plea of defendant that Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was accepted as a tenant in her independent rights even during the lifetime of Shri B.N. Khanna and became contractual tenant has remained unproved. Except bald oral statement of defendant no.2 no other evidence has been adduced on record to prove that Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was accepted as a contractual tenant during the life time of Shri B.N. Khanna. Ex. PW1/6 is of no consequence since the same was written after the death of Shri B.N. Khanna. Vide Ex. PW1/6 Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was simply asked to enhance the rent by 10% in terms of Section 6A of the Act. This document is not sufficient to prove that Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was accepted as a contractual tenant during the life time of Shri B.N. Khanna. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that after the death of Shri B.N. Khanna his wife Smt. Prakashvati Khanna became statutory tenant under Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act and upon her death tenancy rights did not devolve on her daughters.