Punjab-Haryana High CourtMohan Lal vs Piare Lal And Ors. on 21 May, 2003Equivalent citations: (2004)137PLR246Author:Hemant GuptaBench:Hemant GuptaORDER

 

Hemant Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff is aggrieved against the order passed by the courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the ground that the civil suit for possession against tenant is not maintainable as the tenancy is heritable and the respondent tenant Jugal Kishore is protected under theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.2. The plaintiff filed suit for possession in the year 1981 after the death of Jugal Kishore tenant in the year 1979. It was alleged that there is no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and therefore, the premises not being non residential, tenancy is not heritable. However the courts below have relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court inPrince Sales Corporation v. Partap Singh, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 163 to hold that the tenancy is heritable in respect of non residential building as well. There cannot be any exception laid down tothe said judgmentthat the tenancy in respect of non residential building is also heritable and therefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant.3. Since there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the suit for possession would not be maintainable as the defendants are statutory tenants and the tenant is governed and regulated by the provisions ofHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.4. However, the counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court that the plaintiff has also filed suit for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- on account of use and occupation of the shop by the defendants for the period since 16.7.1979 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- being the market rate of the shop in dispute. It may be stated that Jugal Kishore, original tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 38/- per month. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from 16.7.1979. However, the said claim of the petitioner is again not tenable. Since the tenancy is heritable, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any amount over and above the agreed rate of rent. Therefore, the claim for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- is again against the statutory provisions of law. There can be no exception to the statutory provisions of law.5. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as there is no material illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the trial Court.