J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is Defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the property, in dispute has been decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) SATISH Kumar, Plaintiff -Respondents, brought the suit on the allegations that he was the owner of the chaubaras, in dispute, which he had given on yearly rent through the rent -deed to Nanda Mal on April 1, 1966, at the rate of Rs. 144 per year, with the stipulation to pay the yearly rent in advance. The possession of the demised premises remained with the said Nanda Mal after the expiry of one year and, thus, he became the statutory tenant thereafter and paid rent till September 30, 1968. He died in June, 1968. Thereafter, the Defendants, who are his children except his widow Shrimati Kasturi Devi, defendant, continued to be in occupation of the chaubaras, and did not vacate the same despite the repeated requests made by the Plaintiff. Hence the necessity of filing the present suit on the ground that the statutory tenancy being not heritable, came to an end with the death of Nanda Mal. A sum of Rs. 442 being the amount for the use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 30 per month from October 1, 1968 to December 23, 1969, i.e. till the filing of the suit was also claimed. The suit was resisted by the Defendants inter also, on the grounds that they formed a joint Hindu family with Nanda Mal, deceased, the premises, in dispute, were taken on rent for the benefit of the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, on the death of Nanda Mal, the tenancy was heritable. The trial Court found that Nanda Mal had executed the rent note on April 1, 1966, in favor of the Plaintiff and that the tenancy came to an end upon the death of the former being a statutory tenant. It was -also held that the Defendants did not constitute a joint Hindu family with the aforesaid Nanda Mal and that they were not entitled to succeed to his tenancy after his death. For the use and occupation of the premises after his death, compensation was assessed at Rs. 221 at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. As a result, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed to that extent. Two separate appeals were filed against the same by the Defendants as well as by the Plaintiff. The appeal filed on behalf of the Defendants was dismissed, in to whereas the appeal filed on behalf of the Plaintiff was dismissed subject to the modification that he was entitled to the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 15 per month till the delivery of possession' of the demised premises to him. Aggrieved against the same, the Defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court. The lower appellate Court on the appreciation of the entire evidence has given a firm finding that appellants -Appellants who claimed that they formed a joint Hindu family with Nanda Mal, deceased, had no assets and all its male members continued their business separately and resided in different houses. The premises were taken on rent by Nanda Mal, deceased, in his personal capacity. This being a finding of fact, has not been challenged by the Defendants -Appellants in this appeal.
(3.) THE only contention raised on behalf of the Appellants is that the statutory tenancy as such was heritable and, therefore, the Defendants were entitled to remain in occupation of the premises, in dispute, after the death of the statutory tenant. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel placed reliance on Damadilal, v. Parashram : AIR 1976 S.C. 2229, Mohan Lai v. Ram Dass, 1977(1) R.C.J. 756, Parkash Chand v. Kishan Chand, 1982(1) RCJ 729, the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. Ram Dass, 1980(1) R.C. J. 607, and Manmohan Nath v. Shrimati Kesra Devi, 1980 P.L.R 215. Reference was also made to Lekh Raj v. Bhagwat Sarup RSA 1215/72, which was referred to a larger Bench, but has not yet been finally disposed of.;