ivil Appeal No 1561 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 431987 of the Karna taka High Court in WP No 10292 of 1980
NDB Raju and N Ganpathy for the Appellant
Mohan Katarki Rajeshwar Thakur Ms CK Sucharita and PR Ramasesh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 431987 in WP No 10292 of 1980 filed by the respondent No 3 HubIi Dharwar Municipal Corporation setting aside an award made under the Land Acquisition Act 1897 in respect of the compensation payable to the present appellants and directing to re open the proceeding before the civil court on a reference under section 18 of the Act for fresh disposal in accordance with law
The appellants were the owners of the land in question
In a proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 the appellants were held to be having surplus land which by virtue of the provisions of the Act vested in the State Government
However before the publication of the aforesaid declaration in the official gazette steps for acquisition were taken for meeting the requirements of the respondent Corporation
The appellants thus escaped the consequences of the declaration made under the Ceiling Act and became entitled to the compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acqui sition Act
Steps were accordingly taken for determination of the compensation and on an application by the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reference was made to the civil court
It is common ground that after the case was received by the 22 civil court on reference no notice was issued to the respondent Corporation
The court did not however proceed to take evidence and record its own finding on the valuation as it was conceded on behalf of the State Government that the market value of the land could be calculated at the rate of Rs3800 per guntha
The court answered the reference on the basis of the consent of the land owners and the State
The State however was not satisfied with the award and filed an appeal which was dismissed on ground of being not maintainable as the impugned Judgment was held to be a compromise decree
An attempt by the respondent Corporation to intervene also failed
The Corporation thereafter moved the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia challenging the validity of the civil court
s judgment directing higher compensation to be paid
Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation
In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim
Since no notice was given to the respondent Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation
We are in agreement with this view
Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnataka reads as follows 20
Service of notice
The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the reference and directing their appearance before the Court on that day to be served on the following persons namely a the Deputy Commissioner b all persons interested in the reference and c if the acquisition is not made for Government the person or authority for whom it is made
 In view of the clear language used in clause c of section 20 mentioned above there cannot be any doubt that the respond ent Corporation was entitled to be heard before the refer ence could be determined
23 The High Court has also relied upon the decision in Himalay an Tiles and Marbles P Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho dead by Lrs
and others   wherein the expression person interested was interpreted liberally so as to include an authority like the Corporation in the present case but in view of the further provision specifi cally mentioning in clause c the authority for whom the acquisition is made it is not necessary to interpret clause b of section 20 in the present appeal
We accordingly confirm the direction of the High Court as contained in the impugned judgment that the Principal Civil Judge Hubli should re open the proceedings in the LA Case No 64 of 1979 and decide the matter afresh after giving the Corporation a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation
Since the matter is an old one the respondent Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice
The appeal is dismissed with costs
TNA Appeal dis missed


Summary:
Anandi Bai wife of Appellant No 1 and mother of Appellant No 2 had a lease of suit shop in Jaipur for a period of 11 months beginning May 1 1964 wherein she was carrying on small kirana business
The Respondent landlord terminated the lease by a notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act at the end of the term of the lease
However Anandi Bai continued to remain in possession and the landlord went on accepting the rent even after the termination of her tenancy and thus she became a statutory tenant
She died sometime in September 1966
Respondent landlord initiated action for ejectment of her heirs the appellants herein from the demised shop on the ground that on the death of Anandi Bai the appellants have no right to continue in occupation of the premises
The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that Anandi Bai paid and the respondent accepted the rent after the determination of the lease so she was holding over
The first appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court though on different grounds
Second appeal by the plaintifflandlord was allowed by the High Court holding that since the heirs of the tenant had not carried on the business with Anandi Bai during her life time as family business they were not entitled to the benefits of the definition of tenant  as amended by Section 3ii of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Amendment Act 14 of 1976 and accord ingly reversing the decrees of the courts below the suit for ejectment of the appellants from the demised shop was decreed
Allowing the appeal by special leave against the Judg ment and Decree of the High Court preferred by the heirs of the tenant Anandi Bai this Court HELD Under Hindu Succession Act the heirs of the de ceased tenant are entitled to succeed not only to hisher business but also to hisher tenancy rights under the Rent Act which protects the 7 8 heirs from ejectment except in accordance with that Act
Therefore despite the termination of the tenancy the tenancy rights are heritable and the heirs of the tenant are entitled to enjoy the protection of the Act
18A B Admittedly Smt
Anandi Bai was inducted into possession of the demised property under a contract of tenancy which was determined by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
Even thereafter she continued to remain in possession as statutory tenant under the Act
The finding of the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appel late Court is that the respondent landlord after termination of tenancy received the rent from her and thereby she became tenant holding over till the date of her death
18F G The appellants by virtue of intestate succession under Hindu Succession Act being Class I heirs succeeded to the heritable interest in the lease hold right of the demised premises held by Smt
Anandi Bai
They thereby stepped into the shoes of the tenant
They continued to remain in possession as on the date of the suit as statutory tenants
Thereby they are entitled to the protection of their con tinuance as a statutory tenant under the Act
19B C JC Chaterjee vs Sri Kishan   Damadi lal  Ors
vs Parashram  Ors
  Anand Niwas Pvt Ltd vs Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi  Ors   Smt
Gian Devi Anand vs Jeevan Kumar  Ors  V Dhanpal Chattiar vs Yesodai Ammal  Bhavarlal Labhchand vs Kanaivalal Nathalal Intawala  referred to