1. This is defendants second appeal against whom the suit fur possession of the property, in dispute. has been decreed by both the Courts below.
2. The property, which-is the subject matter of the suit.consists. of a shop situated on the ground floor and a chaubara with appurtenances, situated on the first floor in,Bazar Chowk, Jagadhari. According to the plaintiff, the property, in dispute, was let out by her to Sheo Parshad, the father of one of the appellants, on the basis of the rent notes dated November 30, 1949 and July 11; 1959. Sheo Parshad did not vacate the tenanted premises even after the expiry of the period stipulated in the rent notes. He became a statutory tenant during his lifetime. Proceedings for the, eviction of Sheo Parshad. in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, were initiated. During the pendency of those proceedings Sheo Parshad died and as such the said application before the Rent Controller was dismissed as having become infructuous. After the death of Sheo Parshad, the defendants who are the legal representatives of Sheo Parshad, deceased declined to deliver back the possession all the demised premises, hence the present suit. The suit was resisted inter alia on the ground that the building, in dispute, was let out to their father for the joint Hindu family business and as such, they were not liable to be ejected from the disputed premises. It was further alleged that their father remained a statutory tenant during his lifetime and the tenancy being a heritable one, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. The trial Court found that Sheo Parshad was a statutory tenant and after his death, the said statutory tenancy came to an end and, therefore, the defendants being trespassers were liable to be rejected from the demised premises. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of. the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in. second appeal to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Damadi Lal v. Parashram, AIR 1976 SC 2229 and Vithal v. Smt. Shamram, AIR 1979 SC 112t, the statutory tenancy was heritable and therefore, the defendants were entitled to continue in possession of the premises in dispute, after the death of their father Sheo Parshad, who, died on November 13, 1970, during the continuance of the E. P. Rent Restriction Act and before the coming into force of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent end Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called the Act). The learned counsel also relied upon Jagan Nath v Jagdish Rai. (1983) 85 Punj LR 705; Ram Kumar v. Bahn1 Kaur. (19831 85 Punj LR 714, and the judgment rendered by me in Regular Second Appeal No. 1830 mf 197F (Sarup Chand v. Satish Kumar). decided on February 17, 1983.** On the other hand. the learned counsel for the respondent contended.that even if Sheo Parshad, the statutory tenant, died prior to the coming of the Act. even then the provisions of the said Act could not be ignored and that the same were applicable to the present case the proceedings were pending when the Act came into force on April. 27, 1973' and therefore, the definition of the term tenant given therein be made applicable.
4. I have heard the 'learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Damadi Lal's case (AIR 1878 SC 2229) (supra) it could not be denied that a statutory tenancy is heritable in the present case it has been found that the defendants formed a joint Hindu family with their father Sheo Parshad and that they were doing, business in the premises, in dispute, during his lifetime along with' him. It is true that it has been found that the premises were not let out for joint. Hindu family business and it was' only let out to Sheo Parshad in his individual. capacity, but nt. the same time, the occupation by the defendants of the premises in dispute, during the lifetime of Sheo Parshad was not disputed. Since the statutory tenancy held by Sheo Parshad: heritable, the coming into the force of the Act could not debar them from inheriting the statutory tenancy which had devolved upon them on-the death of the father of Sheo Parshad on November 13. 1970. In Jagan Nath's case (1983-85 Punj LR 705 (supra), it was' held by me there when the statutory tenant died, it was the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which was applicable to the building, Therefore, the statutory tenancy was heritable and the civil-Court had no jurisdiction to try such a suit Similarly in Ram Kumar's case (1983-A5 Punj LR 714) /supra), which was a case relating to-a non residential building, i.e., a shop, it. was held that; the statutory tenancy was heritable and that. being so, the occupation if a demised building by the heirs of statutory tenant was as tenants and consequently' the civil Court. had no jurisdiction to order their ejectment. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited at the bar.
5. In this view of. the matter, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and decrees of thc Courts below are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Appeal allowed.