( 1 ) M/s. Mahabir Pershad Tirlok Chand Charitable Trust was the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal has arisen. The suit was filed for possession of a portion on the ground floor of property No. 2231 and shop No. 2232 situated in Masjid Khazoor, Dharmpura, Delhi. Mesne profits were also claimed. The case of the plaintiff was that Shri Babu Ram was a statutory tenant in the said property ; the contractual tenancy had been terminated by a notice given by Shrimati Vidya Wati, the owner of the property on 19th May, 1972. It claimed that Shri Babu Ram became statutory tenant from 1st July, 1972. On 30th April, 1975, Shri Babu Ram had died and thereafter Shri Duli Chand came into possession of the said property and was nothing more than a trespasser.

( 2 ) THE suit was tried by a Subordinate Judge First Class who decreed the suit with costs granting possession in favour of the plaintiff against the efendant and also a decree for Rs. 99. 00 as rent/damages. Shri Duli Chand has then appealed to this court.

( 3 ) IT may now be mentioned that in the written statement filed in the suit, it was claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the property nor a legal entity and there was no locus standi to file the suit. It was further claimed that Shri Babu Ram s tenancy had not been terminated, and hence, all the legal representatives of Shri Babu Ram including the defendant were tenants by operation of law ; also, there were other legal heirs in possession who were necessary parties in the suit. Some other objections were also raised. A issues were number of framed in the suit, but according to the judgment were not preised.

( 4 ) MR. Chitkara on behalf of the appellant passed number of issues at the hearing of the appeal before us. He submitted that the finding on issue No. 2 was erroneous. This issue was as to whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit. Mr. Chitkara urged that a Trust is not a legal entity and, therefore, cannot sue. It was also submitted that the suit was filed through the Secretary of the Trust, though the Trustees had necessarily to sue. A judgment of this Court, Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiyalal Shamlal, 1972 R. L. R. 142, in which Deshpande J. (as he then was) had also held that all the Trustees being joint owners had to sue was distinguished by the trial Court. Mr. Chitkara urged that the trial Court had held that there was a resolution by the Trustees permitting Shri Tara Chand to file the suit, but this is an erroneous understanding of the judgment. Mr. Chitkara also referred to a large number of other cases on this very point.

( 5 ) MR. Chitkara also challenged the decision on issue No. 3 submitting that there was no termination of Shri Babu Ram s tenancy. Furthermore, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the concept of statutory tenant has not been accepted by the Supreme Court in Damadi La] v. paras Ram, 1976 R. C. J. 717. We may in this connection say that there is a specific amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act as far as Delhi is concerned. If a statutory tenant dies, then the protection of the Act is only available to persons specified in the Act and not to others. We would, therefore, hold that as far as this point is concerned, if Shri Babu Ram s tenancy had been terminated, protection would not be available to the appellant, who is a brother of Shri Babu Ram. If a statutory tenant dies, his widow and some other dependents have a right to occupy residential property during their life time. In this case, part of the premises are residential and part is a shop. As the appellant is neither protected as far as residential property is concerned nor as far as commercial property is concerned, he cannot claim to have any interest as a tenant protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, if Shri Babu Ram s tenancy was not terminated according to law, then the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction as th