S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) Chaudharain Smt. Bhartoo v/s. Mst. Asa Devi, 1966 AWR (H.C.) 55, reversing Mst. Asa Devi v/s. Chaudharain Smt. Bhartoo,, 1959 ALJ 824 decides that a contractual tenant who continues to occupy the demised accommodation after the expiry of the term of the lease by virtue of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) does not leave behind a heritable interest on his death. Encouraged by this decision, the Petitioner has put forward a much broader and bolder argument. The argument is this: No person who has occupied an accommodation by virtue of the direction Under Sec. 7(2) of the Act to the owner of the accommodation to let it to him leaves behind a heritable interest on his death.
(2.) We think that the argument so generalised is mistaken. But before we examine it in detail let us first have the salient facts.
(3.) One Ram Das Mehrotra was allotted the disputed accommodation on 25 -3 -1950. He died on 15 -9 -1965. The Petitioner, who is the owner, wanted it to be released in his favour. Ram Prakash, the son of the deceased Ram Das Mehrotra, asserted that as the heir of the deceased he was entitled to continue in the accommodation. However, he also wanted that the accommodation should be allotted to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation to Ram Prakash and rejected the Petitioner's application for release. He informed the Petitioner as under: The house is not vacant and hence the application for release has no basis and is therefore rejected. The house has not fallen vacant. The heirs of Sri Ram Dass are already living in the house whose possession should be regularised.;