Jagan Nath and others vs Jagdish Rai and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is a defendants'' second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the first floor of the house in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court, but has been decreed in appeal.

The admitted facts are that Nathu Ram was a statutory tenant on the first floor of House No. 789, W. No. 17 in Mohalla Mahajan, Rohtak. The plaintiff purchased the said house from its owner Ghasi Ram vide sale deed dated 10th April, 1967. Thus Nathu Ram became statutory tenant under him and continued to be so till his death on 29th February, 1972. According to the plaintiff'', after the death of Nathu Ram, the statutory tenancy terminated and no right could be acquired by his legal heirs who are his sons, widow and daughters. Thus, the defendants were alleged to be trespassers and dence, liable to ejectment.

The suit was contested on the plea that Nathu Ram and Jagan Nath have been in possession of the house as contractual tenants and that Nathu Ram has died, but Jagan Nath his son, being alive, he continued to be a tenant as before. However, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff''s suit as it was held that Nathu Ram was a statutory tenant exclusively and by virtue of the extending definition of "tenant" in the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the heirs of Nathu Ram have become statutory tenants. It was further held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court for trying such a suit was barred. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Rohtak reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the heirs of Nathu Ram did not become tenants of the plaintiff by virtue of the extending definition of "tenant", as held by the trial Court. As a result of this finding, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in second appeal in this Court.

The matter now stands settled as regards this Court. Admittedly, Nathu Ram, the statutory tenant, died on 29th February, 1972; whereas the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 came into force on 23rd of March, 1973. The present suit was filed on 17th March, 1973. Under these circumstances, when the statutory tenant died, it was the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that was applicable to the premises in dispute. As regards this Court, it has been settled that under the aforesaid Punjab Act, when the property is a residential unit, statutory tenancy is heritable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such a suit. A reference in this respect may be made to Parkash Chand v. Kishan Chand 1982 (1) R.C.J. 729, Pir Chand v. B. Mahabir Prasad Saraf 1983 (1) R.C.J. 493, Manmohan Nath v. Smt. Kesra Devi (1980) 82 P.L.R. 215, Rajinder Kumar v. Om Parkash 1980 (2) R.C.J. 5 and Ram Kumar v. Bahal Kaur 1983 (1) R.C.J. 11, In view of these judgments, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.

As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court, dismissing plaintiff''s suit, are restored. No order as to costs.