The heritable rights of the statutory tenant are governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the rights in the tenanted property can only flow in favor of heirs as provided in Section 2(l) and in the order of succession prescribed therein.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. The captioned civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2020, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Guardian Judge, North District, Rohini, Delhi in the matter of 'Vimal Kumar Pathak vs. Harpreet Singh' bearing no. CS No. 1453/2018. 1.1 The impugned order was passed on an application preferred by the defendant, that is, the petitioner in the instant matter, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"].

1.2. The application was pivoted on two grounds:

a) First, that the petitioner/defendant was protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short "DRC Act"]. In nutshell, the jurisdiction of the trial court was put under challenge by taking recourse to Section 50 of the DRC Act.

b) Second, that the underlying suit for possession preferred by the plaintiff, that is, the respondent in the instant matter, had not been appropriately valued both, for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction and affixation of requisite court-fee.

2. Pertinently, when the matter came up for hearing on 08.01.2021, Mr. Pulkit Thareja, who appears for the petitioner/defendant, confined the challenge qua the impugned order assailed in the instant civil revision petition to the first ground i.e. the purported lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to deal with the suit. I must indicate herein that Mr. Thareja, in respect of the second issue, concerning valuation of the suit, had not brought up the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction. He had indicated that the second issue was confined to payment of requisite court-fee. That being said, at the hearing held today, Mr. Thareja limited his submission, as on the first date of hearing i.e. 08.01.2021, to the first issue i.e. subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. Thus, the submission of Mr. Thareja, in respect of this aspect of the matter, veers around the interpretation placed by him on the provisions of Section 2(l) of the DRC Act.

3.1. According to Mr. Thareja, the petitioner/defendant being the legal heir of the original tenant, who was none other than his father i.e. Mr. Kripal Singh, would also fall under the category of a "statutory tenant" and therefore, a civil suit for possession and mesne profits could not have been entertained by the trial court.

3.2. As noted above, in this behalf, reference is made to Section 50 of the DRC Act. Mr. Thareja, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2014, passed in CM(M) No.686/2014, titled Balbir Singh Kohli vs. Suman Verma.

3.3. It is the contention of Mr. Thareja that the trial court has committed an error by placing the petitioner/defendant in the "second category" when there are no categories under the relevant provisions of the DRC Act, that is, Section 2(l).

3.4. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, has contended that a bare reading of Section 2(l) would show that the protection conferred on a statutory tenant qua residential premises is governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the DRC Act.

3.5. In support of this plea, Mr. Agarwal both, on the previous date as well as today relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 683. Furthermore, at the hearing held today, Mr. Agarwal has also placed reliance on the judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Capt. Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Harvansh Kumari & Ors., (2010) 119 DRJ 560.

4. I have perused the record and heard the counsels for the parties in some detail. Having considered the matter, I am of the view that Mr. Agarwal is correct in his contention that the heritable rights of the statutory tenant qua residential premises are governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the DRC Act. This