( 1 ) THE question involved in the appeal relates to the wires of Section 2 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act amended vis-a vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by this definition of the expression tenant the tenancy in relation to premises let for residential purposes is heritable to a limited extent whereas the tenancy in relation to premises not let for residential purposes is not so. This definition in Section 2 (1) has been introduced with retrospective effect.

( 2 ) THE question has arisen in view of the order of reference dated 5th March, 1981 passed by Wad, J. while hearing Regular First Appeal No. 521/ 69. Regular First Appeal No. 211 of 1981 is also placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of Goswamy, J. dated 30th November, 1981 directing this appeal to be heard along with RFA. No. 521/69.

( 3 ) FOR understanding the controversy, we are giving salient facts of RFA No. 521/69.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs/respondents had filed the Suit for possession and mesne profits against Sh. Mool Chand, preiecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein. This suit was inter-alia filed on the allegations that the tenancy of Sh. Mool Chand was determined in his life time by a registered notice sent by the plaintiffs through their counsel which was duly served up in the said Shri Mool Chand and consequently, Shri Mool Chand after service of notice became a statutory tenant and after his death the tenancy rights of Sh. Mool Chand could not be inherited. These allegations were made on the assumption that the property in suit are shops. The suit of the plaintiffs was contested by the appellants inter alia on the ground that plaintiffs were not the owners of the property and that the tenancy of Sh. Mool Chand had not been determined. It was denied that the tenancy rights of Sh. Mool Chand were not heritable.

( 5 ) LEARNED trial court after recording evidence held that the plaintiffs were the owners and that the defendants cannot challenge the ownership. The learned trial court also held that the tenancy of Sh. Mool Chand was validly terminated during his life time vide notice Ex. P-3. Learned trial court also held that the statutory tenancy of Sh. Mool Chand was not heritable. Lenmed trial court consequently by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 1969 decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession and also partly decreed the claim for mesne profits.

( 6 ) THE defendants on being dis-satisfied have come up in this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal clause (1) of Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act ) was amended by Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance ) whereby Section 3 thereof, clause 2 (1) was deemed to have been substituted by the newly substituted clause. Before the expiry of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Parliament passed Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 18 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the amending Act. ) Section 2 of the Amending Act provided that, "in Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Principal Act) for clause (1) the following clause shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, substituted, namely :- (1) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or, but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes- (i) a sub tenant ; (ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy; and (iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy ; subject to the order f succession and conditions specified, respectively, in Explanation I and Explanation II to this clause, such of the afore- said person s- (a) Spouse, (b) son or daughter, or where there are both son and daughter, both of them. (c) Parents, (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been or