Lakhmi Chand Khemani vs Smt. Kauran Devi on 5 November, 1965
13. We do not, as we cannot, dispute that in view of the provisions of Section 2(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a tenant would cease to be a tenant when a decree for eviction is passed against him. But the question that would require serious consideration in these suits is whether the tenant, when he is prosecuting an appeal challenging that decree, would still be regarded to have ceased to be a tenant for all purposes. The decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Kauran Debi does not help us in deciding that question because in that case the tenant, against whom a decree for eviction was passed, challenged the said decree in the appellate court and then in revision in the High Court, but all without success. Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act governing the case also provided that a tenant does not include any person against whom a decree or Order for eviction has been passed. It appears, however, that the Authority concerned under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 refused to grant sanction to execute the said decree and the said decree, therefore, be came inexecutable for the time being and it was accordingly urged that the decree having thus become inexecutable for the time being and it was accordingly urged that the decree having thus became inexecutable for the time being, the tenant did not cease to be a tenant in spite of the decree. It is true that this contention was repelled by the Supreme Court; but it should be noted that in that case the appeal and also the revision against the decree for eviction already failed and, therefore, the question as to the status of a tenant during the pendency of an appeal against a decree for ejectment did not arise for consideration.