Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The appellant/ plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit property, had filed the said suit for possession against Smt. Ram Piari Chawla on 24.09.1983. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant passed away. Consequently, the suit was continued against the legal representatives. The said suit was premised on the plea that Smt. Ram Piari Chawla had inherited limited tenancy rights in respect of the suit property upon the demise of her late husband late Dr. Gopal Singh Chawla-the original tenant, by virtue of Section 2(l)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act') and her limited tenancy right having come to an end, the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendant. The material findings returned by the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the suit were that the contractual tenancy of the original tenant Dr. Gopal Singh Chawla had been validly terminated during his lifetime vide legal notice dated 19.10.1978; that the finding returned by the learned Rent Controller (RC) in his order dated 04.05.1968 passed in an earlier eviction petition filed by the landlord - with regard to the purpose of letting of the suit premises, operated as res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC; that the finding of the learned RC in the order dated 04.05.1968 (passed in the eviction petition filed by the landlord), was that the purpose of letting of the suit premises was residential-cum-commercial; that Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act was not applicable in the facts of the present case as the said provision applies only to residential premises in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamla Devi Vs. Satya P. Goel, 1987 (33) DLT 151, that on the death of Dr. G.S. Chawla, all his legal heirs inherited the tenancy as per the ordinary law of succession; that the tenancy rights could not be deemed to have been extinguished upon the expiry of period of one year from the date of death of late Sh. G.S. Chawla and his tenancy rights devolved on all legal heirs as per law of succession as held in Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 63.

Fifth case

14. On 23.09.1983, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession bearing No. 203/83/98 in respect of the suit property on ground that the tenancy of the original tenant Dr. G.S. Chawla had been determined during his life time, and in view of the provisions contained in Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act only limited tenancy had devolved upon the spouse of the deceased Mrs. Ram Piari Chawla - the defendant. The present respondent was impleaded as the legal representative upon the demise of Mr. Ram Piari Chawla. Issues were framed in the said suit on 14.01.1985. Thereafter, on 28.08.1989 an application moved by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint was allowed, which order was challenged in the High Court by way of a revision petition, and further proceedings in the suit were stayed. In the year 1999, the plaintiff made a statement before the High Court and withdrew the amendment application and, consequently, the revision was disposed of. In July, 1999, the written statement of the defendant was amended, alleging that premises were let out for residence-cum-clinic, and since the premises were not let out for residential purpose alone, the tenancy-after the death of Dr. G.S. Chawla, was heritable. Two additional issues were framed in the suit for possession. Evidence was led by both the parties. What became of the said proceedings would be dealt with a little later. Suffice it to note at this stage, that the present second appeal has arisen out of this litigation.

Para 37 of the report is also relevant, and reads as follows:

37. In the Delhi Act, the Legislature has thought 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(1)(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.

50. The learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the scope and effect of the amended definition of the expression "tenant" (as amended retrospectively in 1976) on the foundation that tenancy rights, generally speaking, are not heritable.

51. At this stage itself, I may point out that the aforesaid is the fundamental difference in the opinion of this Court in Mohan Lal Goela (supra) and in view of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra). Whereas, this Court in Mohan Lal Goela (supra) proceeded to hold that "On his death the right of the tenant to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy comes to an end. The right was personal and did not devolve on his heirs. This is what is understood by the term statutory tenancy. This meant that on the death of the tenant his heirs had to vacate.", the Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) held that the right of tenancy is generally heritable, and that the same devolves upon the heirs of the deceased tenant. This Court while deciding Mohan Lal Goela (supra) was guided by the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976, as extracted above, and took the view that because the right of tenancy is not heritable, and on the death of the tenant, his heirs have to vacate. This Court held, "This worked hardship. There was a cry, loud and clear, for changing the law. The Act of 1958 was amended "with a view to conferring a right of tenancy on certain heirs/successors of a deceased statutory tenant so that they may be protected from eviction by landlords". This is the avowed object of the amendment". Thus, whereas this Court in Mohan Lal Goela (supra) held that the right of tenancy, of every nature, is not heritable, the Supreme Court held just the opposite - that every tenancy right is heritable. Whereas, this Court held that the right conferred by the Act on the heirs of the deceased statutory tenant could not be called "right to tenancy", and that it is no more than right to continue in possession after termination of tenancy, the Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) held that despite determination of the contractual tenancy, there is no change of status qua the tenancy rights of a tenant, and the same right is heritable by the heirs of the tenant upon his demise. In paragraph 60, this Court in Mohan Lal Goela (supra) observed as follows: