DALJIT SINGH Vs. GURMUKH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the heirs of a tenant in respect of a shop can be considered as tenants to claim protection under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), is the main point for decision of these two cases, (Civil Revision No. 1535 of 1980 and Regular Second Appeal No. 2116 of 1980 ).

(2.) THE facts of this civil revision are that Gurmukh Singh was tenant in respect of a shop situate within the Municipal limits of Faridabad Town under Gurmukh Dass, Gurmukh Singh tenant died on 3rd June, 1978, and since his heirs occupied the shop thereafter Gurmukh Dass filed a civil suit on 6th June, 1979, for ejectment of the heirs of Gurmukh Singh tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent up to the date of death of Gurmukh Singh and thereafter for mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that under the Act the tenancy in respect of a shop was not heritable and, therefore, the position of the defendants was that of a trespasser. In the written statement the stand of the defendant was that the tenancy was heritable and as such the civil suit is not competent in view of the Act. On the contest of the parties a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, the trial Court by order dated 28th of April, 1980. Came to the conclusion that the tenancy in respect of a shop was not heritable under the Act and, therefore, the defendant could not be treated as tenants and as such the suit was competent. Against the aforesaid order, the defendants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE facts of R. S. A. No. 2116 of 1980 are that Chuni Lal was a tenant in respect of a shop situate within the Municipal limits of Jhajjar under Ashwani Kumar Kashyap, Chuni Lal died on 4th of June, 1978, and after his death his son Om Parkash occupied the shop on 5th of February, 1979. Ashwani Kumar shop against Om Parkash alleging that under the Act the tenancy was heritable and as such the possession of Om Parkash was unauthorised. The plea of heritable and as such he was the tenant and, therefore, the civil suit was not competent. The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 30th January, 1980, came to the conclusion that the tenancy in respect of shop is not heritable and decreed the suit for possession. On defendant's appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 8th of May, 1980. The defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.