Balbir Singh Kohli vs Suman Verma
2014 Latest Caselaw 3265 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                CM(M) 686/2014 & C.M.Nos.11581-11582/2014

%                                                        JULY 22, 2014

BALBIR SINGH KOHLI                               ......Petitioner
                  Through: Dr.Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SUMAN VERMA                                               ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    At the outset, it is required to be noted that Section 39 of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958 which provided for a second appeal, that too only on

a substantial question of law, has been repealed by the Act 57 of 1988 w.e.f

01.12.1988. The object of the legislature in repealing Section 39 is that

second appeal should not be filed and which could have been filed only on a

substantial question of law.


2.    A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therefore

cannot be filed as if a second appeal is being filed under the repealed

CM(M) No. 686/2014                                               Page 1 of 5
 provision of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. With this limited

introduction, let us see the facts of the present case.


3.    The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India is to the impugned judgment of the Rent Control

Tribunal dated 15.5.2014 by which the Tribunal has set aside the judgment

of the Additional Rent Controller and remanded the matter back to the

Additional Rent Controller for decision on merits. The Additional Rent

Controller originally by the judgment dated 24.1.2013 had decreed the

petition for subletting filed by the present petitioner under Section 14(1) (b)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act.


4.    The first issue which is required to be considered as regards the aspect

of subletting is, whether some legal heirs can surrender their tenancy rights

to one or limited number of legal heirs. The second issue is if the person in

whose favour the tenancy is surrendered dies, do the legal heirs of such a

person inherit tenancy rights.


5.    The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Gian Devi Anand

vs. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., 1985(2) SCC 683 has held that, whereas tenancy

for residential purposes is inherited only by limited number of legal heirs as

CM(M) No. 686/2014                                                  Page 2 of 5
 per Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act if the contractual residential

tenancy is terminated in the lifetime of the tenant and consequently the

contractual tenant for residential purposes becomes a statutory tenant.

However, so far as non-residential tenancy premises are concerned, the

inheritance of tenancy is not to a limited manner of legal heirs, but,

inheritance is to each and every legal heir. In view of the ratio in the case of

Gian Devi's case (supra), tenancy of an immovable property is capable of

being succeeded like any other property of the deceased tenant under the law

of succession.


6.    In the present case, it is not disputed that one Sh.Thakur Dass was a

tenant and after his death, he was survived by his mother-Smt.Chander

Kanta and the daughter Smt.Suman Verma, besides other legal heirs.

Smt.Suman Verma surrendered the tenancy rights in favour of Smt.Chander

Kanta. The first issue is whether one legal heir can surrender the tenancy

rights in favour of other legal heir.


7.    The aspect as to whether when there are more than one legal heirs

then whether only one or more limited number of legal heirs can inherit the

tenancy is decided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

CM(M) No. 686/2014                                                  Page 3 of 5
 Pushpa Rani Vs. Bhagwanti Devi & Anr. 1994 Supp(3) SCC 76. It may be

noted that one of the ways in which the tenancy comes to an end is by

implied surrender as found in Section 111 (f) of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882. Therefore, the first argument urged before the Rent Control

Tribunal and also urged before this Court that some of the legal heirs cannot

surrender the tenancy rights to other legal heirs who have otherwise

inherited the tenancy is misconceived and rejected.


8.    The next argument which is urged is that once the daughter Suman

Verma surrenders her tenancy rights to the mother Chander Kanta, on the

death of the mother Chander Kanta, the daughter Suman Verma cannot

inherit the tenancy rights. This argument is again misconceived because

whatever tenancy rights were originally surrendered were under a separate

title and what tenancy rights inherited by the daughter Suman Verma when

the mother Chander Kanta died are under a different title. Therefore, it

cannot be argued that since originally the daughter Suman Verma had

surrendered the tenancy rights, she cannot inherit the tenancy rights from the

mother Chander Kanta who was the tenant and who has died.




CM(M) No. 686/2014                                                 Page 4 of 5
 9.    I may also note that it was argued before the Additional Rent

Controller that the judgment in Gian Devi's case (supra) cannot be held to

mean for perpetual tenancy and innumerable number of tenants, and which

is also argued before this Court. However, the argument needs to be rejected

in limine in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Gian Devi (supra), which held that the tenancy rights are as much a

property as any other immovable property, and which can be inherited by

succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.


10.   In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




                                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

JULY 22, 2014 KA