Sarup Chand vs Raj Kumar and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—It is not disputed at either end that if the statutory tenancy is held to be heritable, the appeal is without merit. This is the only question feebly agitated by the appellant''s learned counsel.

Appellant, Sarup Chand had let the shop in question to Sawan Kumar vide lease deed for the period 1.4.1968 to 30.3.1969. After the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, Sawan Ram stayed in the shop in question. He died on 6.5.1973. The landlord filed a suit for possession with respect to the shop in question against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant besides recovery of the specified amount for damages, use and occupation. It was asserted that Sawan Ram was the statutory tenant and after his death, his legal representatives did not inherit or acquire tenancy rights.

Both the courts below did not accept the plea of the appellant on this count and held that the tenancy was heritable. The appellant has come to this court in second appeal.

Respondents'' learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Ram Dass and Ors. (1980)82 P.L.R. 177 and also the subsequent decision in the case of Sadhu Ram of Rai Kot v. Romesh Chander of Moga Mandi, reported as 1983 Haryana Rent Reporter, 292. The conclusions arrived at were that in the State of Punjab statutory tenancy with respect to shop is heritable under Estate Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Therefore, in this case it has also to be held that the statutory tenancy was heritable with respect to the shop in question. Appellant''s learned counsel has precious little to say as against these decisions quoted at the Bar.

Having concluded that the tenancy was heritable the findings of the Courts below necessarily have to be affirmed. The suit for possession was rightly dismissed.

No other point was raised before this Court.

For these reasons, the appeal being without merits, fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.