ORDER

1. The short question that arises in these cases is whether a contractual tenant alone can assign or transfer his interest in the demised property and such a right of assignment or transfer is not available to the statutory tenant ? In Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi it was held that after termination of the contractual tenancy the right to remain in possession is personal and is, therefore, not capable of transfer or assignment, Again, in Jaisingh Morarji v. Sovani (P) Ltd. this proposition was reiterated. This Court in Jagdish Chander Chatterji v. Shri Kishan while dealing with the Rajasthan Act took the view that such an interest is not heritable. Then came Damadilal v. Parashram in which this Court took the view that the right is heritable. This view was followed in Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage and Sardar Tota Singh v. Gold Field Leather Works.

2. Then comes the most important case of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar. In paras 26, 31 and 35 in no uncertain terms the five-Judge Bench stated as under : (SCC pp. 704-712)

"The other section of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 considered by this Court in deciding Damadilal case was Sec