Honble JAIN, J. — This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur dated September 8, 1993, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur dated March 30, 1991, dismissing the suit for ejectment.

(2). The facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal may be summarised thus. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment against the defendant-appellants with the averments, in short, as follows. The suit shop was let out to Ramanna on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He alone was doing business in it. The tenancy automatically came to an end on his death. The defendant No.l is his widow and the defendant No.2 is said to be his adopted son. Rent has not been paid for more than six months by them. Ejectment notice was served upon the defendant No.l. She replied that after Ramanns death she and her adopted son became the tenants of the suit shop. In their written-statement, the defendants admit that Ramanna was tenant of the suit shop and after his death they are in its occupation and possession. They have further averred that during the life time of Ramanna they were looking after the business, after his death they became the tenants of the suit shop and they have not committed default in payment of rent. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties the trial court held that after the death of Ramanna the defendants became the tenants of the suit shop, they deposited in time the amount of rent and interest determined, the defendant No. 2 is the adopted son of Ramanna and accordingly the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff- respondent preferred an appeal. It was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur by his judgment dated September 8, 1993.

(3). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant- appellants that the learned appellate court has seriously erred to follow Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad (1), instead of Smt. Ramjeevani vs. Smt. Narati Bai (2), and in the case of Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad (supra) the definition of tenant which was existing in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act prior to its amendment by Rajasthan Act No.14 of 1976 was under consideration. He also contended that the learned appellate court seriously erred to hold that the defendants were not looking after the business of Ramanna in the suit shop before his death.

(4). The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur.

(5). The first question for consideration in this case is whether Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad (supra), is applicable in this case or not. It is not in dispute that the tenant Ramanna died after the definition of Tenant is given in Section 3(vii) of the Act was amended by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 and in the case Tara Chand v. Ram Prasad (supra), the definition of tenant as given in the Act prior to the said amendment was involved. However, in the end of para no.3 at page 530, it has been observed, in connection with the amended definition of Tenant as follows : —

"Therefore, under the amended definition of tenant, if one seeks to make avail of the benefit of statutory tenancy under the Act, he must establish to the satisfaction of the court that the surviving spouse, son or daughter and other heir, in case of residential premises, he/she/they ordinarily had been residing in the premises along with the tenant and continued to do so till date of death of the tenant. Similarly, in respect of premises leased out for commercial or business purposes it must be established that the surviving spouse or son or daughter and the heir as the case may be ordinarily had been carrying on the business during the lifetime of the tenant as members of the family in the demised premises and continued to do the business till da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document