Balbir Singh Kohli v. Suman Verma

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Rent Control Act, 1958 which provided for a second appeal, that too only on a substantial question of law, has been repealed by the Act 57 of 1988 w.e.f 01.12.1988.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under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therefore cannot be filed as if a second appeal is being filed under the repealed 2014:DHC:3416 provision of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.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 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 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.

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