16 and 17 companytending that they have been jointly carrying on the business in the demised premises alongwith Smt.
Anandi, wife of the first appel lant and the mother of the second appellant, Nand Kishore had lease of the demised premises for 11 months from May 1, 1964 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.
Consequently, the appellants amended the written state ment adding therein paragraphs Nos.
The respondent landlord terminated the lease by a numberice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act but she remained in possession and enjoyment of the shop carrying on small kirana business.
She died in September, 1966.
The findings recorded by all the companyrts are that Smt.
The demised premises are governed by the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 Act 26 of 1950 for short the Act .
After giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence afresh the Court recorded the finding in the negative.
On its receipt and companysideration thereof the appellate companyrt af firmed the finding but companyfirmed the decree of the Trial Court on other grounds.
The facts lie in a short companypass that Smt.
So she was a tenant holding over.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1989 of the Rajas than High Court in Regular Civil Second Appeal No.
The amend ment was allowed by the Appellate Court and it called for a finding from the Trial Court in that regard.
Anandi, the appellants did number carry on business with her as family business in the demised premises.
The action for ejectment was initiated by the respondent on the premise that on the death of the tenant, the appellants have numberright to companytinue in occupation of the demised premises.
Anandi was the tenant.
The appellants had leave under Article 136 to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Second Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Anandi paid and the respondent accepted the rent after determination of the lease.
240 of 1978.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Act was amended through Rajasthan Prem ises Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance 26 of 1975 which was replaced by Act 14 of 1976 for short the Amend ment Act .
The finding recorded by all the companyrts is that during the life time and till the date of death of the tenant, Smt.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that Smt.
Therein the definition of Tenant was amended by Section 3 ii of the Amendment Act introducing to Section 3 Clause vii , thus tenant means The person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or, but for a companytract express or implied, would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is companytinuing in its possession after the termi nation of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for evic tion passed under the provisions of this Act and In the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub clause a , his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applica ble to him who had been, in the case of premises leased out for residential purposes, ordinarily residing and in the case of premises leased out for companymercial or business purposes, ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death.
5052 of 1985.
18 which expired on March 31, 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. 1.
The appellants during her life time, had number carried on the business with her till date of her death.
Bhandari for the Respondent.
D. Sharma for the Appellants.
240 of 1978 dated July 5, 1985 reversing the decrees of the Courts below and decreeing the suit for ejectment of the appellants from the demised shop in Jaipur.
