He claimed that since the statutory tenancy was number heritable, he was entitled to a decree for possession.
The respondents are Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the landlords of the respective premises.
The suit is pending.
They assail Section 2 sub section 1 clause iii of the Act, as introduced by Act 18 of 1976 with retrospective affect as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It held that the statutory tenancy was number heritable.
1406 of 1988 assailing Section 2 1 iii of the Act as ultra vires which was dismissed on 30 10 1991.
Thereafter, the third respondent herein, the owner of the premises filed a suit for possession of the premises against the petitioners and their mother, Suit No.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on 11 2 1974.
3 of 1988, filed by landlord was allowed.
The father died on 17 11 1969.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit holding that the tenancy was number validly terminated by a proper numberice.
25 C IIIrd Floor.
116 of 1970.
42 of 1990 was dismissed on 27 9 1991.
1331, First Floor, Baidwara, Maliwara, Delhi 6, on a monthly rental of Rs 40 sometime in the year 1940.
603 of 1984 for possession with mesne profits.
The appeal, RCA No.
The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Additional District Judge was futile.
Respondent 1 landlord filed Suit No.
Thereafter the present special leave petition was filed by the petitioner objecting to the order passed by the High Court aforesaid.
In SLP Civil No.
The petitioners have filed Second Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PARIPOORNAN, J. In this batch of cases a companymon question arises for companysideration.
In Writ Petition No.
The petitioners father obtained the rental of the residential premises bearing Municipal No.
1 K and Servant Quarter No.
Writ Petition Civil No.
Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court Civil Writ No.
It was alleged that the tenancy was terminated by numberice dated 28 7 1969 which expired on 3 9 1969.
1089 of 1987 is the main case.
575 of 1988, the petitioner claims to be the heir of one Shri Chhunnu Lal, a statutory tenant under the Act, in respect of the Premises 42 B, Connaught Place, New Delhi under Respondents 1 and 2 who have filed a suit for possession.
16911 of 1991 the petitioner claims to be the heir of one Shri A.K. Roy, a statutory tenant in respect of Flat No.
A further appeal filed by the petitioner before High Court RSA No.
We will state a few facts of this case in order to understand the scope of the companytroversy raised in this batch of petitions.
There are 6 petitioners in the writ petition.
The petitioner attacks Section 2 1 iii of the Act as ultra vires and discriminatory.
3 A, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi along with Garage No.
The petitioners in the different petitions are the legal heirs of 16 statutory tenants of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Act 59 of 1958 hereinafter called the Act .
