SMT. GIAN DEVI ANAND versus JEEVAN KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SMT. GIAN DEVI ANAND 
v. 
JEEVAN KUMAR AND OTHERS 
May 1, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P.N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA 
FAZAL ALI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND 
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.j 
I 
Delhi Rini Control Act, 1958, ss. 14(1)(a) and 15(1)-Helrs of a dtceastd 
tenant-Whether enjoy protection under the Act-Commercial tenancY-Whether 
heritable. 
The appellant's husband was the tenant in respect of a shop under the 
respondent-landlord since 1979. In 1970 the respondent-landlord served a notice 
on the appellant's husband determining the tenancy. Thereafter, he filed a 
petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the 
tenant from the said shop on several grounds including the grounds of non· 
payment of rent and sub-letting. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition . 
Against the order of the Rent Controller the respondent-landlord preferred an 
appeal bef9re the Rent Control Tribunal and the tenant filed cross-objections. 
During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant died and the present appelJant 
was substituted. The Rent Control Tribunal remanded the case to the Rent 
Controller to decide the question of sub-letting afresh after affording an 
opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 
Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the appellant filed 
an appeal in the High Court. The respondent-landlord filed cross-objection 
and further raised a contention that in view of the death of the original 
tenant who continued to remain in possession of the shop as a statutory tenant, 
the widow and the heirs of the deceased-tenant were not entitled to coutinuc 
to remain in occupation thereof. The High Court allowed the cross-objection 
filed by the respondent-landlord and passed a decree for eviction against the 
appellant mainly on the ground that the protection afforded to the statutory 
tenant by the Act was not available to the heirs and the legal representatives. 
In appeal to this Court the appellant while relying upon Damadi Lal and 
Ors. v. Parashram and Ors. [1976] Supp. S.CR. 645 and V. Dhanapa/ Chettiar 
v. Yesodai Ammal [1980] 1 S.C.R. 334, contended that notwithstandina the 
determination of the statutory tenancy of the tenant in respect of any 
commercial premises, the position in law remains unchanged in so far as the 
tenancy in respect of commercial premises is concerned by virtue of the 
provisions of the Act. The respondent, however argued (i) that the protection 
against the eviction after termination of tenancy afforded to a tenant by the 
Act creates a personal ri8:ht in favour of the tenant who continues to remain 
in possession after termination of hi~ tenancy without aity estate or interest in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 
(1985) SUPPL. S.C.R. 
the premises and therefore on the death of such a tenant his heirs who bad 
neither any estate or interest in the tepanted premises and who do not have 
any pro~ection tinder the Act agaiust eviction are liable to be evicted as a 
mattet of course under the ordioary law of the land ; and tii) that the amend~ 
ment to the definition of 'tenant' with retrospective effect introduced by the 
Delhi Rent Control Amendment Act (Act 18 of 1976) to give personal pro· 
tection and personal' right to continue in possession to the heirs of the deceased 
statutory tenant in respect of residential pr~mises only and not with regard to 
the so called statutory tenant in respect of commercial premises indicated that 
the heirs of so called statutory tenant, do not enjoy any protection under the 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
[Per Y. V. Chandrachud C.J., S.M. Fazal Ali, A.N. Se11 and V.B. Eradi JJ.] 
HELD: (l)(i) The term "statutory tenant" is used in English Rent 
Act and though this term is not to be found in the Indian Acts, in the judg~ 
ments of the Supreme Court and also various High Courts in India, this term 
has often been used to denote a tenant whose contractual tenancy has bf:en 
terminated but who has become entitled to continue to remain in possession 
by virtue of the protection afforded to him by the statutes in question; namely, 
the various Rent Control Acts prevailing in different States of lndia. 
It is 
also important to note that notwithstanding the termination of the contractual 
tenancy by tffe Landlord, the tenant is afforded protection against eviction and 
is permitted to continue to remain in possession even after the termination of 
the contractual tenancy by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.