TARA CHAND AND ANR. versus RAM PRASAD

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~-
~1 
TARA CHAND AND ANR. 
v. 
RAM PRASAD 
MAY 3, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950:Sec-
tion 13( ])-Tenancy rights-Whether heritable-Heirs of tenant-
Whether entitled to enjoy protection of Act. 
Smt. Anandi Bai wife of Appellant No. 1 and mother of Appellant 
No. 2 had a lease of suit shop in Jaipur for a period of 11 months 
beginning May 1, 1964 wherein she was carrying on small kiraua 
business. The Respondent-landlord terminated the lease by a notice 
issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act at the end of 
the term of the lease. However Anandi Bai continued to remain in 
A 
B 
c 
possession and the landlord went on accepting the rent even after the 
D 
termination of her tenancy and thus she became a statutory tenant. She 
died sometime in September 1966. Respondent-landlord initiated action 
for ejectment of her heirs-the appellants herein from the demised shop 
on the ground that on the death of Anandi Bai the appellants have no 
right to continue in occupation of the premises. The trial court dismis-
sed the suit on the finding that Anandi Hai paid and the respondent 
E 
accepted the rent after the determination of the lease, so she was hold-
ing over. The first appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial 
court though on different grounds. Second appeal by the plaintiff-
landlord was allowed by the High Court holding that since the heirs of 
the tenant had not carried on the business with Anandi Bai during her 
life time as family business they were not entitled to the benefits of the 
F 
definition of 'tenant' as amended by Section 3(ii) of the Rajasthan Pre-
mises (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 14 of 1976 and 
accordingly reversing thd decrees of the conrts below, the suit for eject-
ment of the appellaitts from the demised shop was decreed. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave against the Judgment and 
G 
Decree of the High Court preferred by the heirs of the tenant Anandi 
Bai, this Court, 
HELD: Under Hindn Succession Act the heirs of the deceased 
tenant are entitled to succeed, not only to his/her· business but 
also to his /her tenancy rights under the Rent Act which protects the 
H 
7 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
heirs from ejectment except in accordance with that Act. Therefore, 
A despite the termination of the tenancy, the tenancy rights are heritable 
and the heirs of the tenant are entitled to enjoy the protection of the 
Act. [ISA-BJ 
Admittedly Smt. Anandi Bai was. inducted into possession of the 
B 
demised property under a contract of tenancy which was determined by 
issuance of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 
Even thereafter she continued to remain in possession as statutory ten-
ant under the Act. The finding of the Trial Court as affirmed by the 
First Appellate Court is that the respondent landlord after termination 
of tenancy received the rent from her and thereby she became tenant 
holding over till the date of her death. [18F-G] 
c 
The appellants by virtue of intestate succession under Hindu 
Succession Act, being Class I heirs, succeeded to the heritable interest 
in the lease hold right of the demised premises held by Smt. Anandi Bai. 
They, thereby, stepped into the shoes of the tenant. They continued to 
D 
remain in possession as on the date of the suit as statutory tenants. 
Thereby, they are entitled to the protection of their continuance as a 
statutory tenant under the Act. [19B-C] 
J.C. Chaterjee v. Sri Kishan, [1973] 1 SCR850; Damadilal & Ors. 
v. Parashram & Ors., [1976] Suppl. SCR645;Anand Niwas (Pvt.) Ltd. 
E 
v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors., [1964] 4 SCR 892; Smt. Gian Devi 
Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., [1985] Suppl. SCR l; V. Dhanpal 
Chattiar v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980] 1 SCR 334"' and Bhavarlal 
Labhchand v. Kanaivalal Nathalal Intawala, [1986] 1 SCC 571, 
referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON: Civil Appeal No. 5052 
of 1985. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1989 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Regular Civil Second Appeal No. 240 of 1978. 
G 
B.D. Sharma for the Appellants. 
D. Bhandari for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. The appellants had leave under 
• 
...
'f 
TARA CHAND v. RAM PRASAD [RAMASWAMY, J.l 
9 
Article 136 to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High 
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Second Appeal No. 240 of 1978 
dated Jul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.