Surasti vs Kishori Lal and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

The premises, in dispute, are a shop, situated in the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri. It was under the tenancy of Ude Ram Mahajan, owner of the firm M/s Ude Ram Nand Lal. Ude Ram Mahajan died on January 18, 1979, Shrimati Surasti, the Petitioner, is the widow of the said Ude Ram Mahajan. The landlords sought her ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent; impairment of the value and utility of the premises and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of six months without reasonable cause. The Rent Controller, amongst others, concluded that the shop, in question, had remained closed for more than four months after the death of Ude Ram Mahajan and, thus, ordered her ejectment therefrom. In the appeal before the appellate authority, the said finding was maintained.

At the time of the motion hearing in this Court it was submitted that Ude Ram, tenant, on the shop, in dispute, died on January i 8, 1979, whereas the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, came into force on April 27, 1973. It was, therefore, contended that under the said Act. the tenancy of the shop was not heritable with the result that the Petitioner could not be treated as a tenant of the shop, in dispute, after the death of her husband on January 18,1979. That being so, no order of ejectment could be passed by the authorities under the aforesaid Act. This matter has now been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Harish Chander v. Kirpa Ram (1986) 89 P. L. R. 164, wherein it was hold that the tenancy in respect of a non-residential building as defined in Section 2 (d) of the afore-mentioned Act, in the events of the death, of the tenant devolved on the heirs of the deceased tenant in accordance with the general law of succession applicable to the tenant and the heirs, who step into the shoes of the deceased tenant, continue to enjoy the protection afforded by the Act. In view of the Full Bench judgment in the above-said case, no meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant-Petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vicate the premises ; provided an undertaking, in writing, is filed with the Rent Controller within one month that on the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlords and the rent for that period is paid regularly in advance every month.