Smt.Dhan Mal Devi Jain Vs. Gordhan Dass & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.3505 of 1984.
Petitioner: Smt.Dhan Mal Devi Jain
Respondent: Gordhan Dass & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.3505 of 1984.
Judges: A.P.SEN & SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 03, 1987
Head Note:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949:
Section 2(i) – Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961; Section 2(1) – Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Section 5(11)(c) – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Definition of ‘tenant’ – Rights of a statutory tenant – Whether heritable? – Following the decision of the Constitution Bench in Smt. Gian Devi Anand’s case, held that the right of the statutory tenant in respect of non-residential accommodation is heritable.
Cases Reffered:
1. Damadilal & Ors v. Parashram & Ors. (1976) Suppl. SCR 645.
2. Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 3 SCR 198.
3. Smt.Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors.(1985) Suppl.SCR 1
2. Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 3 SCR 198.
3. Smt.Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors.(1985) Suppl.SCR 1
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Smt.Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors. (1985) Suppl. SCR 1 has now settled the conflict between the decision of this Court in Damadilal & Ors v. Parashram & Ors. (1976) Suppl. SCR 645 taking a view upon the construction of the definition of the term ‘tenant’ under S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control act, 1961 as including a statutory tenant and also holding that the right is a heritable one, and the view to the contrary expressed in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 3 SCR 198 upon a construction of the word ‘tenant’ as defined in S.5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 regarding the nature of statutory tenants and its heritability. The court has held in Smt. Gian Devi Anand’s case at p.37 of the Report expressly overruled the view taken in Ganpat Ladha’s case.
2. In the present case, the High Court has rightly held that on the death of the statutory tenant Ghotam Mal having occurred on December 9, 1972 i.e. prior to the date when the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 came into operation, the rights were governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is to be noticed that the definition of the term ‘tenant’ as contained in S.2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was almost identical with the definition of the term in S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. That being so, the right of a statutory tenant was heritable. In view of the decision of the constitution Bench in Smt.Gian Devi Anand’s case, we must hold that the right of the statutory tenant in respect of non-residential accommodation is heritable.
3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Smt.Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors. (1985) Suppl. SCR 1 has now settled the conflict between the decision of this Court in Damadilal & Ors v. Parashram & Ors. (1976) Suppl. SCR 645 taking a view upon the construction of the definition of the term ‘tenant’ under S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control act, 1961 as including a statutory tenant and also holding that the right is a heritable one, and the view to the contrary expressed in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 3 SCR 198 upon a construction of the word ‘tenant’ as defined in S.5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 regarding the nature of statutory tenants and its heritability. The court has held in Smt. Gian Devi Anand’s case at p.37 of the Report expressly overruled the view taken in Ganpat Ladha’s case.
2. In the present case, the High Court has rightly held that on the death of the statutory tenant Ghotam Mal having occurred on December 9, 1972 i.e. prior to the date when the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 came into operation, the rights were governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is to be noticed that the definition of the term ‘tenant’ as contained in S.2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was almost identical with the definition of the term in S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. That being so, the right of a statutory tenant was heritable. In view of the decision of the constitution Bench in Smt.Gian Devi Anand’s case, we must hold that the right of the statutory tenant in respect of non-residential accommodation is heritable.
3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
