Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Two Different Meanings of 'Tenant';

9. It was arguable that the old definition of 'tenant' equated 'any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy' with 'any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or but for a special contract could be payable', namely the contractual tenant. But the decision in Anand Nivas and J. C. Chatterjee held otherwise, namely that 'any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy' was not to be equated with the contractual tenant, but was to be regarded as a statutory tenant whose tenancy and statutory protection could not be inherited by his legal representatives. Actually the decision in Anand Nivas was in relation to the definition of 'tenant' in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which generally similar to the old definition of 'tenant' of the Delhi Act, could arguably also be distinguished from it. The same could be said of the definition of 'tenant' in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which was the subject-matter of the decision in J. C. Chatterjee.

10. On the other hand, the definition of 'tenant' in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is substantially the same as was the old definition of tenant in the Delhi Act. In Damadilal , it has been held in agreement with the dissenting judgment of Sarkar J. in Anand Nivas that a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy was a tenant precisely of the same kind as was the contractual tenant as the two were equated with each other in the definition of 'tenant', It was pointed out that the concept of 'statutory tenant' was unknown to the rent control legislation in India. It was not based on any general principle. On the contrary, it was the result of statutory provisions in the English legislation which had no parallel in the Indian legislation. That concept could not, therefore, be brought into Indian legislation either on principle or by analogy. It was, therefore, held that the legal representatives of a person who continued in possession after the termination of his tenancy were entitled to inherit his tenancy and the statutory protection against eviction, etc. attached to it.

"In Section 2 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), for clause (1), the following clause shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been substituted."

14. The old definition was substituted by the new definition with a retrospective effect which went back to the very commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958. The effect was (as if the definition of 'tenant' right film the inception of the Delhi Act was the definition which was inserted in it by the amending Act of 1976. This cut both ways: (a) Those who could argue that prior to the decision of Anand Nivas the legal representatives of a person who continued in possession after the termination. of his tenancy inherit ed the tenancy were deprived of that argument with the consolation that only some of the legal representatives and that too for a period of only one year inherited that tenancy, (b) Those (who) could argue that in view of the decision in Anand Nivas the legal representatives of a person continuing in pos session after the termination of his tenancy did not inherit either his tenancy or the statutory protection were told that some of the legal representatives for the period of one year could inherit the tenancy. The legislation was thus a compromise between the contending claims of the landlords and the legal representatives of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. The legislative compromise took effect and from the inception of the Delhi Act till now it is deemed to be the law in this respect.

25. The definition of 'tenant' in clause (1) of S. 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, stood originally as follows:-

" 'tenant' means ... and ... includes ... also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy..." This definition clearly indicates that though after the termination of tenancy, a tenant ceases to be so, yet he shall be described as a 'tenant' by reason of the extended definition inserted only for purposes of the said statute as contradistinguished from a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act. The Act does not by itself create a fresh tenancy or renew the expired one. It only restricts, and fetters the right of the landlord to re-enter. Such a tenant is indisputably a statutory tenant', vide Firm Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath v. Pritam Singh a Full Bench decision delivered by Desai, J. A similar extended meaning of a 'tenant' in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Anand Niwas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi Sarkar J. had observed that such a person has been called a statutory tenant and himself preferred 'to use that description for economy of expression'. He was of the view that such a tenant 'has no estate or property in the' demised premises, but 'has nonetheless an interest, a right in the premises occupied by him, which he may be empowered to transfer'. He found that Section 13 (1) (e) and some other provisions of the Bombay Act clearly indicated that a statutory tenant had been so empowered by that Act. But, Shah, J. speaking for himself and M. Hidayatullah J. observed as follows (at p. 422):-