A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS second appeal raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of the term 'heir' occurring in clause (1) of Section 3 (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the 'Act' for short, hereafter). Both the courts below having decreed the plaintiff- respondent's suit for possession against the appellant, the latter has filed this second appeal.
(2.) THE facts found by the courts below and which are not in dispute, lie within a narrow compass. One Smt. Kashi Devi was admittedly residing in the accommodation in dispute as its tenant. THE plaintiff-respondents were the landlords of the same. At the time of her death in the year 1973, the appellant who is the son of the brother of Smt. Kashi Devi's husband, was residing with Smt. Kashi Devi. THE appellant's father Gopal Singh, though alive at that time, was, however, not residing with Smt. Kashi Devi. Gopal Singh also died in 1975. On the death of Smt. Kashi Devi the present suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondents against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was residing with Smt. Kashi Devi only as the latter's licensee and inasmuch as he was not an heir of Kashi Devi he did not inherit her tenancy rights. With the result that after her death the appellant had ceased to have any legal claim to remain in possession over the disputed accommodation. The defence of the appellant, on the other hand, was that, firstly, he had legally inherited the tenancy rights of Kashi Devi as one residing with her normally and also being an heir and consequently till his tenancy was determined the plaintiff could not seek a decree for dispossession ; and, secondly, he having been adopted by Nanhe Singh and his wife Smt. Kashi Devi, he became a tenant of the disputed accommodation after the death of Smt. Kashi Devi, Nanhe Singh the original tenant having predeceased Kashi Devi. Both the courts below have found that the appellant is not the adopted son of Nanhe Singh and Kashi Devi. They have also rejected the claim of the appellant that he had succeeded to the tenancy rights of Kashi Devi on the ground that he was not the latter's heir even though he might have been normally residing with her, in view of the fact that her father Gopal Singh was alive at the time of her death.
(3.) FOR the appellant, Sri S. M. Dayal submits that the question whether a person is an heir within the meaning of Section 3 (a) (1) of the aforesaid Act should be determined not only with respect to the personal law applicable to the deceased tenant but also the relevant provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The issue, it is contended, cannot be decided totally divorced from the purpose and object of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Sri S. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that whether a person is an heir within the meaning of Section 3 (a) (1) has to be determined entirely on the basis of the personal law of succession governing the deceased tenant. In support, he has cited several decisions which have been commented upon hereafter.;