Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs;

The appellant would be a tenant within the meaning of Section 3(a) only when he is an heir. The appellant is not a son but only a nephew of Naubat Singh. He, however, claims to be an heir on the basis of a will executed by Naubat Singh conveying all his rights and properties including the tenancy rights in respect of the disputed shop in his favour and that he had been helping Naubat Singh in his business for the last several years and continued to remain in possession of the shop even after the death of Naubat Singh. Accordingly he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14. We have already dealt with the question whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1976 and also of the amended provisions of Section 14 and we have negatived the contention of the appellant. Therefore, the precise question for consideration would -be whether the appellant is an heir within the meaning of Section 3(a) on the basis of the will executed in his favour by Naubat Singh. There seems to be a cleavage of opinion on this point in various High Courts. The Allahabad High Court in Rukmani Devi v. III Addl. District Judge, Kanpur [1977 All Ren Cas 72] and Munni Lal v. Shiv Dei [1981 All Ren Cas 6 (Short Notes of Cases 13)] held that the question as to who are heirs of the deceased tenant, will be decided in accordance with the personal law of the tenant, as this Act does not lay down the list of heirs on whom the tenancy should devolve. In some of the Rent Control Acts list of the heirs has been specified for the purpose of devolution of tenancy on the death of the tenant. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gulzara Singh v. Tej Kaur [AIR 1961 Punj 288] on the other hand held:

24. The moment a tenant governed by the aforesaid Act dies, his right in tenancy will devolve upon the persons as indicated in the definition of tenant given in Section 2(g) of the Act by operation of law. The framing of the definition of tenant in the Act is mandatory in nature as would appear from the initial phrase "tenant means"

employed therein. We have already indicated that by a Will a right in a property can be conveyed only if the law of the land permits such disposition. In the case before us, the Act of 1997 has laid down the specific line of succession in favour of limited heirs of a tenant and that too, to a limited extent as indicated in Section 2(g) of the Act. Thus, a tenant by way of testamentary disposition cannot overcome the rigour of the provisions contained in Section 2(g) of the Act quoted above."