- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-8-1990 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the substitution application filed by the petitioners with a direction to file a fresh substitution application along with an ap plication to set aside abatement.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are landlords of the shop in dis pute. THEy filed Suit No. 237 of 1984 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Allahabad for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages for use in occupation against Jawahar Lal (deceased defendant) on the ground that he committed default in pay ment of arrears of rent and illegally sub-let the shop in question. THE defendant con tested the suit and denied that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent or sub-let the disputed shop. THE trial Court dismissed the suit on 21-12-1985. THE petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 36 of 1986 against the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court. During the pendency of the revision, the sole defendant, Jawahar Lal, died on 9-11-1988 leaving behind him his brother Panna Lal and Nephews from other brothers. As Panna Lal was a preferential heir, the petitioners filed application for substitution of his name as heir of deceased Jawahar Lal, Panna Lal filed objection stating that he had relinquished all his rights in the property and the business which was carried on by his late brother Jawahar Lal, He has left no rights and interest in the tenancy rights of late Jawahar Lal, He had executed registered relinquishment dated in this respect on 16th July, 1965. Respondent No. 1 held that as Panna Lal executed relin quishment deed, he did not inherit the tenancy rights and the sons of other brothers of late Jawahar Lal were entitled to succeed his tenancy rights and they should be impleaded as his heirs. The substitution application filed by the petitioners was dis missed with the observation that the petitioners can file a fresh application for substitution with an application to set aside abatement.
(3.) THE core question is whether an heir, who is entitled to succeed as an heir of a tenant, is entitled to relinquish his rights in the demised property. Section 3 (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines the "tenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death in the case of residential building such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death; and in case of non- residential building, his heirs. THE building in question is non-residential. On the death of the tenant his tenancy rights were to devolve upon all his heirs. THE word "heir" has not been defined under the Act. THE Act contemplates only natural heirs. THE heirs will be determined according to personal law applicable to a party. In case of respondents, the succession will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. THE property of a male Hindu Shall devolve upon the heirs as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Brother is preferential heir than brother's son as enumerated in Class I and Class II of the Schedule referred to under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Pannalal, the brother of the deceased, will have a right to succeed the tenancy rights in preference to brother's son. Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Act does not contemplate testamentary succession but only natural heirs can succeed to the tenancy rights and the same principle is ap plicable that by executig a relinquishment deed the tenancy rights cannot be trans ferred to other heirs who in the line of suc cession were not entitled to succeed the tenancy rights of the deceased. In Ratan Lal v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1979 ALJ 849, where the succession to the tenancy rights was claimed on the basis of a Will, it was held that the word "heirs" in the context of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 will mean only natural heirs. The word "heirs" in relation to a tenant should be construed as referring to the per son entitled to succeed the property under the law of interstate succession applicable on the date when the tenant dies. This view has been followed in subsequent decisions of this Court.;