GIAN DEVI ANAND V. JEEVAN KUMAR, AIR 1985 SC 796
FACTS
The respondent landlord in April,1970 determined the tenancy of the appellant tenant Wasti Ram (since deceased) in respect of a shop, by serving a notice to quit. In September, 1970 the landlord filed a petition u/s 14 of the Act for the eviction of the tenant Wasti Ram from the said shop on the following grounds: (1) non-payment of rent; (2) bona fide requirement; (3) change of user from residential to commercial; (4) substantial damage to property; and (5) sub-letting.
In the petition filed by the landlord against the tenant Wasti Ram, the landlord had also impleaded one Ashok Kumar Sethi, as defendant no. 2 alleging him to be the unlawful sub-tenant of the tenant Wasti Ram.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: upheld only the ground of non-payment of rent and directed the tenant to pay the arrears and rent as were decided by him. The Rent Controller held that the tenant was liable to eviction under section 14(1)(a) of the Act and further held that in view of the provisions contained in section 15(1) of the Act there would however be no order or decree for eviction, if the tenant deposited all the arrears within a period of one month from the date of the order and in that case the ground of non-payment of rent would be wiped out. The Rent Controller ordered accordingly.
Rent Control Tribunal: On the question of sub-letting, the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal of the landlord and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decide the question of sub-letting after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in this regard.
High Court: The High Court held that on the death of the statutory tenant, the heirs of the statutory tenant had no right to remain in possession of the premises, as statutory tenancy was not heritable and the protection afforded to a statutory tenant by the Act is not available to the heirs and legal representatives of the statutory tenant.
ISSUE
Whether the heirs of a deceased tenant whose contractual tenancy in respect of commercial premises has been determined, are entitled to the same protection against eviction afforded by the Act to the tenant?
JUDGEMENT
Court observed that, ‘Statutory Tenant’ is the term used to denote a tenant whose contractual tenancy has been terminated but who has become entitled to continue to remain in possession by virtue of the protection afforded to him by the various Rent Control Acts, prevailing in different states of India.
Court referred to the case of Damadilal wherein it was concluded, that the so-called statutory tenant had an interest in the premises occupied by him and the heirs of the statutory tenant “had a heritable interest in the premises.”
According to the definition of the “tenant” in s.2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, tenant includes any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. In V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, it was established that mere determination of tenancy does not in any way bring about any change in the status of the tenant. However, s.2 (l)(iii) seeks to restrict this right in so far as the residential premises are concerned.
Court noted that for certain purposes the Legislature in various Rent Acts has treated commercial premises differently from residential premises. With regard to the commercial premises, the Legislature in the Delhi Rent Control Act has thought it fit not to make any such provision.
As there is no provision regulating the rights of the heirs to inherit the tenancy rights of the tenant in commercial premises, the tenancy right which is heritable devolves on the heirs under the ordinary Law of succession.
It was thus held that Wasti Ram enjoyed the status of a tenant of the premises in dispute even after determination of the contractual tenancy and notwithstanding the termination of the contractual tenancy, Wasti Ram had an estate or interest in the demised premises; and tenancy rights of Wasti Ram did not come to an end with his death but they devolved on the heirs and legal representatives of Wasti Ram. The heirs and legal representatives of Wasti Ram step into his position and they are entitled to the benefit and protection of the Act.
It was thus held that the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the heirs of Wasti Ram, the so-called statutory tenant, did not have any right to remain in possession of the tenanted premises and did not enjoy any protection under the Act. The judgement and order of the high court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
In addition to this, Court further considered as follows:
A landlord may let out the premises under various circumstances. Usually, a landlord lets out the premises when he does not need it for own use. Circumstances may change and a situation may arise when the landlord may require the premises let out by him for his own use. It is just and proper that when the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation the landlord should be entitled to recover the possession of the premises. The legislature in its wisdom did recognise this fact and the Legislature has provided that bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use will be a legitimate ground under the Act for the eviction of his tenant from any residential premises. This ground is not made available in case of commercial premises. But, bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial.
Therefore, it was suggested that Legislature may consider the advisability of making the bona fide requirement of the landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well.