Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. In short, the contention of Mr. Thareja on the above issues is that (1) The premises in question was let out to the firm M/s. Mehlu Mal Laxman Dass; (2) The statutory protection of the tenant did not come to an end on the demise of Mehlu Mal in 1957; (3) The tenancy devolved on the heirs of Mehlu Mal, including the appellants and the daughter of Mehlu Mal; (4) The defendants are not unauthorised occupants in the suit premises; (5) The suit is barred under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act. The civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (6) The premises were not let for residential purposes as claimed by the plaintiff. That apart, it is also his contention that as the appellants are legal tenants, the suit is barred under Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act.

39. Mr. Kalia has stated after the death of Laxman Dass in 1950, the tenancy devolved upon Mehlu Mal, being the other surviving tenant, under provisions of the Rent Control Act. The tenant has paid the rent up to March 31, 1998. As the tenancy was on a month to month basis, it was terminated on July 31, 1950 by efflux of time, and the tenant in possession became a statutory tenant. The statutory protection against eviction afforded by the Rent Control Act to Mehlu Mal was manifestly personal to him, and on his death, the said protection has come to an end. It did not devolve upon the appellants jointly or severally. At the time of his death, neither Mehlu Mal nor any of his family members were using the suit property as a residence. The appellants have not resided in the suit property, nor were they financially dependent on the deceased Mehlu Mal. As such, the appellants are in unlawful possession of the suit property.

43. It is the case of the respondent and contended by Mr. Kalia that after the death of Mehlu Mal, the protection against eviction was available to his legal heirs for a limited time, as the appellant No. 1 is the widow of the predeceased son of Mehlu Mal and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Mehlu Mal as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and as such, their rights were limited. He has vehemently opposed the suggestion of Mr. Thareja that the tenancy was created in the name of M/s Mehlu Mal Laxman Dass as a partnership firm for commercial purposes and from the inception of the tenancy, the said commercial activities are being carried out from the suit property, and therefore, the death of Mehlu Mal did not make any difference to the tenancy rights of the appellants, inasmuch as, the tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs of the deceased partner Mehlu Mal by general law of inheritance and as such, the Explanation (1) given to Section 2 of the Rent Control Act would not be attracted. It is the case of the respondent and categorically deposed by PW-1 in the Trial Court that the suit property was let out for residential purposes only.

"20. It may be noted that suit property was rented out to Mr. Mehlumal and Laxman Dass as joint tenant in terms of rent note Ex. PW 1/ 3 and after the death of Laxman Dass, Mehlumal was occupying the suit property as tenant and not in any other independent right to the suit property. The said tenancy was for residential purposes only at a monthly rent of Rs.45/- excluding property taxes for a fixed period of 11 months and after expiry of the fixed period of the lease, the tenants become statutory tenants as Sh. Laxman Dass had expired issueless in the year 1950 and by virtue of provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, which was amended with retrospective effect in 1976, the status of defendant Mehlumal was that of a statutory tenant and notwithstanding the expiry of the tenancy by afflux of time, the plaintiff/landlord could not proceed against Mehlumal being statutory tenant. Mehlumal and his family were living at KU-1, Vishakha Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi and the suit property is lying unused, unoccupied and locked for the last couple of years. None of the defendants or any of their family members are residing in the suit property as admitted by defendants. No suggestion has been given to PW-1 that defendants or Mehlumal were residing in the suit property. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that tenancy was created in favour of joint tenants Mehlumal and Laxman Dass and after the death of Laxman Dass the said tenancy devolved upon Mehlumal and after the expiry of the lease deed the said Mehlumal became statutory tenant. The plaintiff is landlady of the defendant as rent is admittedly paid to her predecessor in title i.e. Ms. Amtul malik, the mother-in-law of plaintiff.