R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS in this revision under Section 50 (1) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('act' or 'krc act' for short) are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant (S. V. Venkataramanappa) in regard to a non-residential premises. The respondent herein is the landlord of the premises. the monthly rent is Rs. 200/- per month. The respondent herein filed a petition against the tenant for eviction under proviso (h) to Section 21 (1) of the act.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the said petition, the tenant died. His wife and four sons (the petitioners herein) were brought on record, as his legal representatives. Thereafter, the said l. rs of the tenant made an application under Section 151 of the CPC for dismissal of the petition contending that the eviction petition is not maintainable after the death of tenant of a non-residential premises, relying on the decision of the supreme court in venkatesh thimmaiah gurjalkar v s. s. hawaldar. the trial court rejected the application by order dated 23-3-1998, reserving liberty to the l. rs to urge the question of maintainability along with the merits of the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the l. rs of the deceased tenant have filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS contend that in gurjalkar's case, supra, the supreme court has held that the legal heirs of a statutory tenant in regard to a non-residential premises do not become tenants, as defined under Section 3 (r) of the act; and unless there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents, an eviction petition could not be maintained; that therefore, the eviction petition filed by the landlord against the tenant, cannot be continued by bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased statutory tenant of a non-residential premises; and the remedy of the landlord is to bring a civil suit.

( 4 ) IN gurjalkar's case, supra, the statutory tenant of a non-residential premises died on 12-7-1994. Thereafter his son continued in possession and tendered the rent. The landlord refused to receive the rent on the ground that a l. r. of the deceased tenant was not a 'tenant' and that he was in unauthorised possession. Thereafter the landlord filed an eviction petition against the son of the deceased tenant. The supreme court held that tenancy of non-residential premises was not heritable and that as the landlord had contended that respondent was not his tenant and the courts below had given a finding that respondent in the eviction petition did not answer the definition of tenant under section 3 (r) of the Act, the eviction petition could not be maintained against such a person. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE facts are different in this case. The eviction petition was filed against venkataramanappa, who was admittedly a statutory tenant of the premises. It is not in dispute that petition was maintainable when it was filed. During the pendency of the petition, the tenant died and his l. rs were brought on record. The question for consideration is whether an eviction petition filed by the landlord against the tenant under the krc act in regard to a non-residential premises, is liable to be dismissed, as no longer maintainable, on the death of the tenant during the pendency of the eviction petition; and consequently, whether the remedy of the landlord is to file a suit for possession treating the l. rs of the deceased statutory tenant as unauthorised occupants.

( 6 ) IT is necessary to refer to the relevant Provisions of the krc Act, before examining the question arising for decision. 6. 1 Section 3 (r) defines a 'tenant' as "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 tenant's family upto the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document