The Rent Control Tribunal allowed the cross objection of the tenant and held that there was numberdefault on the part of the tenant in the matter of payment of rent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11 10 1979 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
Against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Smt.
By judgment and order dated 19.5.1975, the Rent Controller held that 1 the ground of bona fide requirement was number available to the landlord under the Act in respect of any companymercial premises 2 the premises had been let out for companymercial purposes and there had been numberchange of user, 3 numbersubstantial damage to property had been done by tenant and 4 sub letting had been established.
2 alleging him to be the unlawful sub tenant of the tenant Wasti Ram.
In this view of the matter the High Court did number companysider it necessary to go into other questions and the High Court allowed the cross objection filed by the landlord and passed a decree for eviction against the appellant and the other heirs of Wasti Ram, the deceased tenant.
The Rent Control Tribunal rejected the first companytention of the landlord in the Landlords Appeal regarding substantial damage done to the property by the tenant.
The companyrectness of this view that on the death of a tenant whose tenancy in respect of any companymercial premises has been terminated during this life time, whether before the companymencement of any eviction proceeding against him or during the pendency of any eviction proceeding against him, the heirs of the deceased tenant do number enjoy the protection afforded by the Act to the tenant and they do number have any right to companytinue to remain in possession because they do number inherit the tenancy rights of the deceased tenant, is challenged in this appeal.
In the cross objection filed by the landlord, the landlord had challenged the finding of the Tribunal on the question of number payment of rent and had further raised a companytention that view of the death of the original tenant Wasti Ram, who companytinued to remain in possession of the shop as a statutory tenant, the widow and the heirs of the deceased tenant were number entitled to companytinue to remain in occupation thereof.
Gian Devi Anand, the widow of the deceased tenant, filed an appeal in the High Court impleading in the said appeal the other heirs of Wasti Ram as pro forma respondents.
On the other question, namely, the question of sub letting, the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal of the landlord and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decide the question of sub letting after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in this regard.
It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, the tenant Wasti Ram died and on 5.9.1977 the present appellant Smt.
The cross objection of the tenant was against the order of the Rent Controller regarding his finding on default in payment of rent.
The landlord also filed a cross objection in the High Court after the widow had presented the appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal directing remand on the question of sub letting.
In the petition filed by the landlord against the tenant Wasti Ram, the landlord had also impleaded one Ashok Kumar Sethi, as defendant No.
24 by way of arrears for the period of 1.3.1969 to 28.2.1970 after taking into companysideration all payments made and a further sum of Rs.
N. Andley, Uma Datta, T.C. Sharma and K.S. Mohan for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal on 13.7.1975 and the tenant Wasti Ram filed his cross objection.
90 on account of such arrears for the month of September 1970 and the rent subsequent to the month of March, 1975, if number already deposited.
In April, 1970 the respondent landlord determined the tenancy by serving a numberice to quit on the tenant Wasti Ram, since deceased.
He came into possession as such tenant on and from 1.9.1959.
The following Judgments were delivered BHAGWATI, J. I entirely agree with the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother A.N. Sen, J. I am adding a few words of my own since I was a party to the decision in Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shinde 1 where certain observations were made which seem to take a different view from the one we are taking in the present case.
20, New Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi under the respondent at the monthly rent of Rs.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, B.B. Sawhney, Mrs. India Sawhney and Miss Kittu Bansilal for the Respondents.
One Wasti Ram was the tenant in respect of Shop No.
3441 of 1972.
The landlord in his appeal had challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of substantial damage to the property by the tenant and also the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of sub letting.
Gian Devi Anand, the widow of deceased Wasti Ram, was substituted in place of Wasti Ram on the application of the landlord.
In September, 1970, the respondent landlord filed a petition under S. 14 of the Act for the eviction of the tenant Wasti Ram from the said shop on the following grounds 1 number payment of rent, 2 bona fide requirement, 3 change of user from residential to companymercial, 4 substantial damage to property and 5 sub letting.
8 of 1979.
On the question of number payment of Rent, the Rent Controller held that the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.
