Smt. Kanta Devi and others vs Chinder Singh

R.N. Mittal, J.—This second appeal has been filed by the Defendants against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dated 11th January, 1974.

Briefly the case of the Plaintiff was that he was the owner of the property and he leased out the same to Som Dutt Sharma, the husband of Defendant No. 1, son of Defendant No. 2 and father of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 at the rate of Rs. 22/- per mensem. Som Dutt Sharma died on 15th May, 1970, leaving behind the Defendants at his heirs and legal representatives. It is alleged by him that the tenancy was not heritable and consequently they had become trespassers. He further averred that an amount of Rs 344/- was due from the Defendants as damages He, therefore, prayed for a decree for possession and recovery of Rs 344/- as damages. The suit was contested by the Defendants who pleaded that the tenancy was heritable and, therefore, they had become tenants under the Plaintiff.

The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in toto. The Defendants went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court They have come up in second appeal to this Court.

The only question that has been raised by Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the Appellants, is that the staturory tenancy is heritable and the Courts below have erred in taking a contrary view. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Gordhan Dost and othtrs v. Smt Dhan Mala Deyi (1984) 16 P.L.R. 703 and Swami Someshwaranand Udasi v. Darshan Singh etc L.P.A. No. 1421 of 1982. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1421 of 1982, decided on 17th October, 1984.

I have considered the argument and find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel. It is not necessary to give detailed reasoning as the matter has been decided by a Division Bench, to which I was a party, in Gordhan Dass''s case (supra) wherein it was held that the statutory tenancy is heritable. Similar view was taken by the Letters Patent Appeal in Swami Someshwaranand Udasi''s case (supra). In view of the aforesaid judgments the finding of the Courts below is liable to be reversed in this regard.

Mr. Sarin has very fairly not asked for reversal of the decree as far as the recovery of damages for use and occupation of Rs. 344/- is concerned.

For the aforesaid reasons I partly accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent of granting decree for possession of the property in dispute and dismiss the suit in that regard. No order as to costs.