TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Again, in (Jaisingh Morarji v. Sovani (P) Ltd.)2, (1973)1 S.C.C. 197, 201, this proposition was reiterated. This Court in (Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan)3, (1972)2 S.C.C. 461, while dealing with Rajasthan Act took the view that such an interest is not heritable. Then came (Damadilal v. Parashram)4, (1976)4 S.C.C. 855 : 1976 Supp. S.C.R. 645, in which this Court took the view that the right is heritable. This view was followed in (Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage)5, (1981)4 S.C.C. 143 and (Sardar Tota Singh v. Gold Field Leather Works)6, (1985)1 S.C.C. 414. ( 2. ) Then comes the most important case of (Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar)7, (1985)2 S.C.C. 683. In paras 26, 31 and 35 in no uncertain terms the fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquire any interest or estate in the tenanted premises, become liable to be evicted as a matter of course. The very premises on the basis of which the argument is advanced, is, in our opinion, unsound. The termination of the contractual tenancy in view of the definition of tenant in the Act does not bring about any change in the status and legal position of the tenant, unless there are contrary provisions in the Act; and, the tenant notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises. This interest or estate which the tenant under the Act despite termination of the contractual tenancy continues to enjoy creates a heritable interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary. We have earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and to the extent indicated in section 2(l)(iii). The Legislature, which under the Rent Act affords protection against eviction to tenants whose tenancies have been terminated and who continue to remain in possession and who are generally termed as statutory tenants, is perfectly competent to lay down the manner and extent of the protection and the rights and obligations of such tenants and their heirs. Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act does not create any additional or special right in favour of the heirs of the 'so-called statutory tenant' on his death, but seeks to restrict the right of the heirs of such tenant in respect of residential premises. As the status and rights of a contractual tenant even after determination of his tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quoted, lend support to the decision of this Court in Damadilal case. These decision correctly lay down that the termination of the contractual tenancy by the landlord does not bring about a change in the status of the tenant who continues to remain in possession after the termination of the tenancy by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Act. A proper interpretation of the definition of tenant in the light of the provisions made in the Rent Acts makes it clear that the tenant continues to enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises despite the termination of the contractual tenancy. In view of this it is beyond doubt that a statutory tenant has every right to enjoy the estate or interest in the tenanted premises despite the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give on licence the whole or part of such premises Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit in any area the transfer of interest in premises held under such leases or class of leases or the giving on licence any premises or class of premises and to such extent as may be specified in the notification. The submission of Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Counsel, is that the leases or class of leases in the proviso must relate to the contractual leases because there is no question of any statutory lease. We find great difficulty in accepting this submission because these words are prefaced by the transfer of interest in premises held under such leases or class of leases . Therefore, it must be h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993(1) Mah.L.J. 1071 : 1993(2) Mah.L.R. 952, the attention of the Bench was not drawn to Gian Devi case. Of course, even otherwise that case dealt with a licence. The reason why we refer to this is such a licence falls under section 15(1) of the Bombay Act. The point was barred by the Constitution Bench judgment in Gian Devi case. Therefore, we find no support can be derived by the appellant from Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage. In regard to other aspects, we agree with the findings of the High Court that neither section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act nor Order 21, Rule 102 C.P.C. could be invoked by the appellant. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
