(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE respondents laid the proceedings under Section 21(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for short the Act for ejectment of the tenant, Vishnu Narayan Gadskari. The District Munsif, Belgaon granted a decree for ejectment and an appeal was filed and during its pendency the tenant died. Thereafter, the appellants came on record as his legal representatives. The District Judge held that the tenancy was not heritable. Accordingly, the appellants cannot maintain the appeal. On that finding, the appeal was dismissed and on revision the High court confirmed the order of the District Judge. Hence this appeal by special leave under Article 136.

(3) ADMITTEDLY, the premises is a non-residential one. Section 3(r) defines the tenant:

(R) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and "includes" the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenants family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a premises, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house, or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority.

(4) ON a bare reading of this definition the High court concluded that the protection was given to the tenant and heirs only in respect of the residential premises and it does not cover non-residential premises. This question was considered by the Constitution bench of this court reported in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar. Dealing with the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, therein, the similar definition with mutatis mutandis defined tenant and the Act was silent, as regards commercial premises. While considering the provisions of the Act this court held:

"IN the absence of the provision contained in Section 2(l)(iii), the heritable interest of the heirs of the statutory tenant would devolve on all the heirs of the so-called statutory tenant on his death and the heirs of such tenant would in law step into his position. This sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(l) seeks to restrict this right insofar as the residential premises are concerned. The heritability of the statutory tenancy which otherwise flows from the Act is restricted in case of residential premises only to the heirs mentioned in Section 2(l)(iii) and the heirs therein are entitled to remain in possession and to enjoy the protection under the Act in the manner and to the extent indicated in Section 2(l)(iii). The Legislature, which under the Rent Act affords protection against eviction to tenants whose tenancies have been terminated and who continue to remain in possession and who are generally termed as statutory tenants, is perfectly competent to lay down the manner and extent of the protection and the rights and obligations of such tenants and their heirs. Section 2(l)(iii) of the Act does not create any additional or special right in favour of the heirs of the so-called statutory tenant on his death, but seeks to restrict the right of the heirs of such tenant in respect of residential premises. As the status and rights of a contractual tenant even after determination of his tenancy when the tenant is at times described as the statutory tenant are fully protected by the Act and the heirs of such tenants become entitled by virtue of the provisions of the Act to inherit the status and position of the statutory tenant on his death, the Legislature which has created this right has thought it fit in the case of residential premises to limit the rights of the heirs in the manner and to the extent provided in Section 2(l)(iii). It appears that the Legislature has not thought it fit to put any such restrictions with regard to tenants in respect o