A statutory tenancy cannot be bequeathed by a tenant under a will in favour of a stranger unless there is a specific provision in the Rent Control Act allowing such bequest.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 40 Rul I for appointment of a Receiver and under Order 39 Rules I and 2 for the issue of an injunction against the defendants.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, and which are not disputed by the defendants, are that the plaintiff is the owner of Block No. A, Connaught Place, New Delhi known as Kashi House.

( 3 ) ON the ground floor of the said building there is a shop. No. A-3. The said shop measures 1830 sq. ft. on the ground floor and has a mezzanine floor measuring about 330 sq. ft. Besides that, there is an open compound measuring about 250 sq. ft. According to the plaintiff, on 15th September. 1936 the said shop was let out by the predecessor-in-interest of. the plaintiff, namely, his father to Mrs. F. Lawrence Enid. It is not necessary to give any Further details with regard to the tenancy of the shop in favour of Mrs. Enid except to notice that it is an accepted position of all the parties to the suit that Mrs. Enid was the sole-tenant of the aforesaid shop till she died on 23rd March. 1988.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, Mrs. Enid did not leave behind any heirs or next of kin and the said property became free of any tenancy claim with her death. The defendants Nos. 2,4 and 5 were stated to be, by the plaintiff, business associates of Mrs. Enid and accoiding to the plaintiff the said defendants have no right to the premises in question. Defendant No. 6 was Smt. Kasturi Devi who was in occupation of a part of the said building, though not of the said shop.

( 5 ) IN the suit as originally filed, the plaintiff prayed that defendants 2 to 6 be restrained by perpetual injunction from trespassing into the premises A-3, Connaught Place, New Delhi or from trying to start and carry on any business therein.

( 6 ) IN the written statement which is filed by defendants 2, 4 and 5, it has been contended that sometimes in 1982 a partnership came into existence of which, apart from Mrs. Enid, defendants 4 and 5 were also partners. It is further stated that Mrs. Enid was the sole tenant of the premises in question and that the partnership firm did not have any tenancy right threin. It is, however, the case of the defendants that Mrs. Enid had executed a will whereby the tenancy rights in the said shop had been bequeathed by her lo defendant No 2. The defendants, therefore, submit that they are in a lawful possession of the premises as defendant No. 2 has now entered into a partnership with defendants 4 and 5.

( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the various contentions which have been raised, one further fact may be taken note of and that is that according to the plaintiff the tenancy of Mrs. Enid was terminated by a notice dated 5th April, 1971 which was issued to her and which was replied to by her counsel by letter dated 9th April, 1971. The case of the plaintiff is that Mrs. Enid was a statutory tenant at the time of her death and, therefore, she could not, in any event, bequeath her alleged interest in the property in favour of defendant No. 2.

( 8 ) ON 29th March, 1988 defendants 2 to 6 were restrained, by an ad interim ex parte injunction, from entering the said premises. Thereafter by order dated 7th April, 1988. Shri Jatinder Sethi, Advocate was appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the premises. The Local Commissioner has filed a report along with an inventory of the goods lying therein and the report also states that the keys of the locks to the main entrance as well as of the almirahs inside were with defendants 2, 4 and 5.

( 9 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint so as to seek additional relief of mandatory injunction as well as the relief of possession. This amendment was sought because an objection had been raised by the defendants to the frame of the suit. By order dated 19th April, 1988 the said amendment was allowed and amended plain