Honble M.C. JAIN, Actg. C.J.—The question which has been referred for consideration by the learned Single Judge is as to whether after the death of the tenant his widow and children are entitled to retain the premises for the purpose of carrying on the business which is being carried on by the tenant in the said premises? This question involves the interpretation of the definition of the expression "tenant" as contained in Section 3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts, in brief, are that Ram Swaroop had taken a shop on rent at Rs. 16/-per month from Smt. Naroti Bai, respondent herein. The respondent filed a suit for eviction against Ram Swaroop on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide and reasonable personal necessity of premises for the use or occupation of the husband and son of the respondent. The said suit was decreed by the Additional Munsiff, Ajmer by his judgment and decree dated 16.12.1981. Ram Swaroop filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the Munsiff in the Court of District Judge, Ajmer and the said appeal was transferred for disposal to the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Ajmer. During the pendency of the appeal Ram Swaroop died and his legal heirs, namely, his wife-Smt. Ramjeevani, his adopted son Radhey Shyam Pandit and Yogesh Pandit, the son of Radhey Shyam Pandit, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for being brought on the record in the place of deceased appellant Ram Swaroop. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the applications did not fall within the ambit of the definition of tenant as contained in Sec. (3) (vii) of the Act. The Additional District Judge by his order dated 13.12.1988, dismissed the said application for the reason that the applicants could not be regarded as tenants under section 3 (viii) of the Act and they could not invoke the protection of the provisions of the Act. The Additional District Judge, therefore, held that the appeal had abated. Feeling aggrived by the said order dated 13.12.1988 passed by the Addl. District Judge legal representatives of Ram Swaroop have filed this revision in this Court. The said revision was heard by a learned Single Judge, who by his order dated 23.08.1989, has referred the following question for consideration by the Full Bench :

"(1) Whether after the death of the tenant, his widow and children have right to survive by continuing the business which has been conducted by the husband/father ?

(2) Whether the meaning assigned by this Court to the definition of tenant should be adopted in the future also?"

The learned Single Judge felt that these questions arise for consideration in a number of cases pending in this Court as well as in the subordinate courts and would also arise in future and, therefore, be felt that the same may be considered by a Full Bench of this Court.

3. We have heard Shri B.P. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.M. Lodha, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Before we deal with the submissions urged by the learned counsel, we may take note of the background in which the definition of the expression tenant as contained in Section 3 (vii) of the Act came to be enacted.

5. In the original enactment the expression tenant was defined in section 3 (vii) in the following terms:

"3 (vii) "tenant" means the person by whom the rent is, or but for a contract express or implied would be, payable for any premises and includes any person holding or occupying the premises as a sub-tenant. By section 2 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1952 the following words were added in the said definition or any person continuing in possession after the termination of a tenancy in his favour otherwise than under the provisions of the Act."

6. In Anand Nivas Private Ltd. Vs. Anaddji Kalyanjis Pedhi (1) the Supreme Court while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document