ivil Appeal No 5052 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 571989 of the Rajas than High Court in Regular Civil Second Appeal No 240 of 1978
BD Sharma for the Appellants
D Bhandari for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
1
The appellants had leave under 9 Article 136 to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Second Appeal No 240 of 1978 dated July 5 1985 reversing the decrees of the Courts below and decreeing the suit for ejectment of the appellants from the demised shop in Jaipur
The facts lie in a short compass that Smt
Anandi wife of the first appel lant and the mother of the second appellant Nand Kishore had lease of the demised premises for 11 months from May 1 1964 on payment of monthly rent of Rs 18 which expired on March 31 1965
The respondent landlord terminated the lease by a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act but she remained in possession and enjoyment of the shop carrying on small kirana business
She died in September 1966
The demised premises are governed by the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1950 Act 26 of 1950 for short the Act 
Section 131 thereof postulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or a contract no court shall pass any decree or make any order in favour of the landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent thereof to the full extent allowable by the Act unless the landlord proves to the satisfaction of the court any one of the grounds enumerated in Clauses a  to k  thereof
The action for ejectment was initiated by the respondent on the premise that on the death of the tenant the appellants have no right to continue in occupation of the demised premises
The findings recorded by all the courts are that Smt
Anandi was the tenant
The appellants during her life time had not carried on the business with her till date of her death
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that Smt
Anandi paid and the respondent accepted the rent after determination of the lease
So she was a tenant holding over
During the pendency of the appeal the Act was amended through Rajasthan Prem ises Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance 26 of 1975 which was replaced by Act 14 of 1976 for short the Amend ment Act 
Therein the definition of Tenant  was amended by Section 3ii of the Amendment Act introducing to Section 3 Clause vii thus vii tenant means a The person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is or but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termi nation of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for evic tion passed under the provisions of this Act and 10 b In the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub clause a his surviving spouse son daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applica ble to him who had been in the case of premises leased out for residential purposes ordinarily residing and in the case of premises leased out for commercial or business purposes ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death
 Consequently the appellants amended the written state ment adding therein paragraphs Nos 16 and 17 contending that they have been jointly carrying on the business in the demised premises alongwith Smt
Anandi Bai therefore they are entitled to the continuance of the tenancy
The amend ment was allowed by the Appellate Court and it called for a finding from the Trial Court in that regard
After giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence afresh the Court recorded the finding in the negative
On its receipt and consideration thereof the appellate court af firmed the finding but confirmed the decree of the Trial Court on other grounds
The High Court held that as the appellants had not carried on the business with the tenant during her life time as family business they were not enti tled to the benefit of the amended definition of the tenant
Accordingly decreed the suit
2 The contention of the learned counsel for the appel lants is that the lease hold right is an heritable estate and on death of the tenant in September 1966 the succes sion thereto was opened and the appellants being Class I heirs under the inherited by intestate succession the lease hold estate in the tenancy rights held by Smt
Anandi
The said right received express recognition under the Amendment Act which is not in deroga tion to the personal law
The High Court thereby committed manifest error of law
Shri Dalveer Bhandari learned coun sel for the respondent on thorough preparation of the case has vehemently resisted the contention
He also circulated written arguments
According to him preceding the Amendment Act the commercial or business tenancy was not heritable as held in JC Chaterjee vs Sri Kishan  by the High Courts of Rajasthan Punjab and Haryana and Delhi
For the first time the right to succession has been created under the Amendment Act
The finding recorded by all the courts is that during the life time and till the date of death of the tenant Smt
Anandi the appellants did not carry on business with her as family business in the 11 demised premises
On determination of tenancy the appellants became trespassers
Thereby the appellants became disenti tled to remain in possession of the demised premises
It is seen that Section 131 of the Act engrafts non obstenti clause namely notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract no court shall pass any decree of eviction against the tenant so long as the tenant is ready and will ing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by the Act unless one or other ground or grounds specified in Clauses a  to k  of sub section 1 of Section 13 are established
Admittedly the settled legal position preced ing the amendment act prevailing in the State of Rajasthan was that the lease hold rights of the tenanted premises for commercial or business purposes governed by the Act is not heritable
It is a personal right to the tenant
A reading of the amendment to the definition of tenant  in Section 3 Sub Clause viib makes the legislative intent manifest that from the date of the Amendment Act came into force on the death of the tenant his surviving spouse son daughter and other heir in accordance with personal law as applica ble to him who had been in the case of the premises leased out for residential purposes ordinarily residing and in the case of premises leased out for commercial or business purposes ordinarily had been carrying on business with himher in such premises as members of hisher family upto his her death
Therefore under the amended definition of tenant if one seeks to make avail of the benefit of statu tory tenancy under the Act he must establish to the satis faction of the court that the surviving spouse son or daughter and other heir in case of residential purposes heshethey 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 life time of the tenant as members of the family in the demised premises and continued to do the business till date of the death of the tenant
In other words to avail of the statutory right under section 3viiib there must continue to subsist the unity of action and continuity of membership of the family between the deceased tenant and the spouse etc
The break in either of the links snaps off the right denuding the continuity of the statutory tenancy
3 Every tenancy is rounded initially upon a con tract
The contractual tenant has an estate or property in the lease hold interest of the tenancy and his heritability is an incidence of the tenancy
Despite termination of the tenancy this Court ecologised the resultant consequences in Damadilal  Ors
vs Parashram  Ors 1976 Suppl
12 SCR 645 in which three Judges Bench held that It cannot be assumed however that with the determination of the tenancy the estate must necessarily disappear and the statute can only preserve his status of irremovability and not the estate he had in the premises in his occupation
 The facts in that case were that the tenancy of business premises was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The contracted tenancy was determined and a suit for eviction from a shop was laid in the Civil Court against the tenant
During its pendency he died and his legal representatives were sought to come on record which was resisted
The word tenant  had been defined under sec tion 21 of that Act thus a person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any accommodation is or but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any accommodation and includes any person occupying the accommodation as a subtenant and also any person continuing in possession after the termina tion of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made he definition is the same as in the present case on hand under Clause a of Sec
3vii of the Rajasthan Act
It was contended that the tenancy came to a terminus with its determination by issuance of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and the legal representatives do not succeed to the estate of the deceased tenant so as to prosecute the proceedings
While repelling that contention noticing the definition referred to above Gupta J speaking for the court held that The definition makes a person continuing in possession after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless a decree or order for eviction has been made against him thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists
The incidents of such tenancy and a contrac tual tenancy must therefore be the same unless any provi sion of the Act conveyed a contrary intention
That under this Act such a tenant retains an interest in the 13 premises and not merely a personal right of occupation will also appear from section 14 which contains provisions restricting the tenant s power of subletting 
There is nothing to suggest that this section does not apply to all tenants as defined in Section 2i
A contractual tenant has an estate or interest in premises from which he carves out what he gives to the sub tenant
Section 14 read with section 2i makes it clear that the so called statuto ry tenant has the right to sub let in common with a contrac tual tenant and this is because he also has an interest in the premises occupied by him Accordingly it was held that they succeeded as legal representatives to the lease hold interest of the commercial premises
4 How to resolve the controversy between the ratio therein and that of majority contra view taken in Anand Niwas Pvt Ltd vs Anandji Kalvanji Pedhi  Ors  and Jagdish Chander Chaterjee  Ors
vs Sri Kishan  Anr supra the later case on which heavy reliance was placed by Mr Dalveer Bhandari that arose directly under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act referred to the Constitution Bench in Smt
Gian Devi Anand vs Jeevan Kurnar  Ors
 The facts therein were that the defini tion of tenant under the unamended Delhi Rent Control Act similar to Section 3viia of the Act was in vogue in the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
The premises in question therein was commercial premises
The definition of tenant was amended with retrospective effect
The contention raised was that the amended Act accords heritability to residential tenancy while omitting the benefit to commercial or business tenancy
The legal representatives of the deceased tenant did not acquire heritable interest in the commercial tenancy under that Act
AN Sen J speaking for the Constitution Bench surveyed the case law in extenso and upheld the view in Darnadilal s case
It was held at p 24 to 25 thus For an appreciation of the question it is necessary to understand the kind of protection that is sought to be afforded to a tenant under the Rent Acts and his status after the termination of the contractual tenancy under the Rent Acts
It is not in dispute that so long as the contrac tual tenancy remains subsisting the contractual tenan cy creates heritable rights and on the death of a 14 contractual tenant the Heirs and legal representatives step into the position of the contractual tenant and in the same way on the death of a landlord the heirs and legal represen tatives of a landlord become entitled to all the rights and privileges of the contractual tenancy and also come under all the obligations under the contractual tenancy
The Rent Acts seek to preserve social harmony and promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of the tenants mainly and at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the landlords
Though the purpose of the various Rent Acts appear to be the same namely to promote social justice by affording protection to tenants against undue harassment and exploitation by landlords providing at the same time for adequate safeguards of the legitimate interests of the landlords the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose benefit the Rent Acts are essentially passed
It may also be noted that various amendments have been introduced to the various Rent Acts from time to time as and when situation so required for the purpose of miti gating the hardship of tenants  
Though provisions of all the Rent Control Legislation is that a contractual tenant on the termination of the contractual tenancy is by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Acts not liable to be evicted as a matter of course under the ordinary law of the land and he is entitled to remain in possession even after determination of the contractual tenancy and no order or decree for eviction will be passed against a tenant unless any ground which entitles the landlord to get an order or decree for possession specified in the Act is established
In other words the common feature of every Rent Control Act is that if affords protection to every tenant against evic tion despite termination of tenancy except on grounds recog nised by the Act and no order or decree for eviction shall be passed against the tenant unless any such ground is established to the satisfaction of the Court   5 The seven Judges Bench of this Court reported in V Dhanpal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal
 while considering the effect of termination of the tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act vis a vis right of the tenant under TN Buildings Lease  Rent Control Act 1960 held that various State Rent Control Acts make serious encroachment in the field of freedom of 15 contract
It does not permit the landlord to snap his rela tionship with the tenant merely by his act of serving a notice to quit on him
In spite of the notice the law says that he continues to be a tenant and he does so enjoying all the rights of a lessee and at the same time is deemed to be under all the liabilities such as payment of rent etc in accordance with law
Similarly while considering the lan guage of Section 101 of the AP Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 similar to Section 131 of the Act whether the statutory lease is to be terminated by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it was further held at p 352 B that even a special provision is provided by way of abundant precaution only that without this a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the contractual tenancy and until an eviction order is passed against him continues on the same terms and conditions as before and he cannot be evicted unless a ground is made out for his eviction according to the State Rent Act
In Gian Devi Anand s case the Constitu tion Bench further held at p 32 F that The termination of the contractual tenancy in view of the definition of tenant in the Act does not bring about any change in the status and legal position of the tenant unless there are contrary provisions in the Act and the tenant no with standing the termination of tenancy does enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises
This interest or estate which the tenant under the Act despite termination of the contractual tenancy continues to enjoy creates a heritable interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary  at p 33E to G it was held that As the status and rights of a contractual tenant even after determination of his tenancy when the tenant is at times described as the statutory tenant are fully protected by the Act and the heirs of such tenants become entitled by virtue of the provisions of the Act to inherit the status and position of the Statutory tenant on his death the LegislatUre which has created this right has thought it fit in the case of residential premises to limit the rights of the heirs in the manner and to the extent provided in Sec tion 21 iii
It appears that the Legislature has not thought it fit to put any such restrictions with regard to tenants in respect of commercial premises in this Act 16 at p 35D to G it was observed that So long as the contractual tenancy of a tenant who carries on the business continues there can be no question of the heirs of the deceased tenant not only inheriting the tenancy but also inheriting the business and they are entitled to run and enjoy the same
We have earlier held that mere termination of the contractual tenancy does not bring about any change in the status of the tenant and the tenant by virtue of the definition of the Tenant  in the Act and the other Rent Acts continue to enjoy the same status and posi tion unless there be any provisions in the Rent Acts which indicate to the contrary
The mere fact that in the Act no provision has been made with regard to the heirs of tenants in respect of commercial tenancies on the death of the tenant after termination of the tenancy as has been done in the case of heirs of the tenants of residential premises does not indicate that the legislature intended that the heirs of the tenants of commercial premises will cease to enjoy the protection afforded to the tenant under the Act   at p 36 B to 37 A it was concluded that We are of the opinion that in case of commercial premises governed by the Delhi Act the Legislature has not thought it fit in the light of the situation at Delhi to place any kind of restriction on the ordinary law of inheritance with regard to succession
It may also be borne in mind that in case of commercial premises the heirs of the deceased tenant not only succeed to the tenancy rights in the premises but they succeed to the business as a whole
It might have been open to the Legislature to limit or restrict the right of inheritance with regard to the tenancy as the Legislature had done in the case of the tenancies with regard to the residential houses but it would not have been open to the Legislature to alter under the Rent Act the Law of Succes sion regarding the business which is a valuable heritable right and which must necessarily devolve on all the heirs in accordance with law
The absence of any provision restrict ing the heritability of the commercial tenancies notwith standing the determination of the contractual tenancies will devolve on the heirs in accordance with law and the heirs who step into the position of the deceased tenant will continue to 17 enjoy the protection afforded by the Act and they can only be evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Act
There is another  significant consideration which in our opinion lends support to the view that we are taking
Commercial premises are let out not only to individuals but also to Companies
Corporation or anybody with juristic personality question of the death of the tenant will not arise
Despite the termination of the tenancy the Company or the Corporation or such juristic personalities however will go on enjoying the protection afforded to the tenant under the Act
It can hardly be conceived that the Legisla ture Would intend to deny to one class of tenants namely individuals the protection which will be enjoyed by the other class namely the Corporations and Companies and other bodies with juristic personality under the Act
If it be held that commercial tenancies after the termination of the contractual tenancy of the tenant are not heritable on the death of the tenant and the heirs of the tenant are not entitled to enjoy the protection under the Act an irrepara ble mischief which the Legislature would never have intended is likely to be caused
 6 On the facts of the case it was held that the tenant who continues to remain in possession even after the termi nation of the contractual tenancy till a decree for eviction against him is passed continues to have an estate or inter est in the tenanted premises and tenancy rights in respect of commercial premises are heritable
There is no provision in the Act regulating the rights of its heirs to inherits the tenancy rights of the tenanted commercial or business premises
The tenancy rights devolved on the heirs under the ordinary law of succession
Accordingly it was held that the tenancy rights of Wasti Ram devolved on all the heirs of Wasti Ram on his death
The ratio with equal force applies to the facts of this case
The unamended definition of tenant under section 3vii of the Act reads thus tenant means the person by whom the rent is or but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any prem ises and includes any person holding or occupying the prem ises as a sub tenant or any person continuing in possession after the termination of a tenancy in his favour otherwise than under the provisions of the Act
 18 This definition is mutatis mutandis same as the one defined under Madhya Pradesh Act and also the Delhi Rent Act
Equally it would be tile same under the amended clause a  of section 3vii with slight elongation
Under the heirs of the deceased tenant are entitled to succeed not only to his business but also to his tenan cy rights under the Rent Act which protects the 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
7 The ratio in Bhavarlal Labhchand Shah vs Kanaiyalal Nathalal Intawala does not help the re spondent
The facts therein was that the tenant by testimen tary disposition will bequeathed his occupancy rights in the tenanted property in favour of the stranger legatee
The question was whether such a legatee is entitled to the benefit of continuance of tenancy under Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rules Control Act
It was held that since the bequest was in favour of the third party the testator thereby cannot confer rights under the provisions the Rent Act on the stranger who was not a member of the family
The march of law culminated in Gian Devi Anand s case knocked of the bottom of AC Chaterjee s ratio
Simi larly the foundation in Sita Ram vs Govind 1969 Weekly Law Notes p 108 Balkesh and another vs Shanti Devi and others reported in 1972 Rent Control Tribunal p 285 and Mohan Lal vs Jaipur Hosiery MIlls Pvt Ltd reported in 1974 Rent Control Journal p 240 has been shaken and no longer remain to be good law
8 Admittedly Smt
Anandi was inducted into possession of the demised property under a contract of tenancy which was determined by issuance of 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 Trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate court is that the respondent landlord after termination of tenancy received the rent from her and thereby she became tenant holding over till date of her death
Anandi enjoyed the status as a statutory tenant of the premises even after the determination of the tenancy
Notwithstanding the termination of the contractual tenancy the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent and Smt
Anandi under the Act was not snapped off
The heritable property or interest in the lease hold right in the tenancy continued to subsist in the tenant Anandi
19 On her death the rights to succession to an estate of the deceased owner vested immediately on hisher than near est heirs and cannot be held in abeyance except when a nearer heir is then in the womb
The vested right can not be divested except by a retrospective valid law
The appellants by virtue of intestate succession under  being Class I heirs succeeded to the heritable inter est in the lease hold right of a demised premises held by Smt
Anandi
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 continuance as a statu tory tenant under the Act
The succession having been opened to the appellants and succeeded in September 1966 to the estate of the tenant without any hiatus and restriction on the heritable interest in the lease hold right held by the tenant Smt
Anandi the Amendment Act being admittedly prospective in operation does not apply to the facts of the case and does not have the effect of divesting their vested rights in the lease hold held by the tenant
They are enti tled to enjoy the tenancy rights without any restrictions or hedge put by the Amendment Act
We thereby hold that the Amending Act does not apply to the facts of this case
But the appellants succeeded to the heritable interest in the lease hold right in the demised premises governed by the Act subject to the rights and limitations prescribed under the Act and also subject to the rights in favour of the respond ent created under section 131 a to k and other provi sions of the Act
9 Accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants are entitled to remain in possession of the demised shop in question till the appellants are duly evict ed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended from time to time
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree and judgment of the High Court is reversed and that of the Trial Court is restored
The suit accordingly stands dismissed but in the circumstances each party is directed to bear their own costs throughout RNJ Appeal dis missed


Summary:
In a claim for damages for the permanent disability suffered by the claimant the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under different beads viz a com pensation for permanent disability b expenses of treat ment and c general damages for pain suffering and loss of enjoyment of life against the Insurance Company and the truck owner
On Separate appeals by the claimant truck owner and the Insurance Company the High Court not only affirmed the award but also improved it by granting interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date the claim petition was filed upto the date of payment of compensation
The truck owner filed an appeal by special leave before this Court on several grounds including that when the claimant had not claimed interest in the application and the Tribunal had not awarded any the High Court was in error in granting interest under Section 110 CC of the  where the power of the Court of the Tribunal was discretionary and that the grant of damages on account of mental agony pain and suffering etc
was arbitrary and ought to have been taken to be covered by the compensation granted on account of loss of earning
The claimant also filed an appeal by special leave praying for more compensa tion interest etc
on each account
Dismissing the appeals this Court 2 HELD 11 The question of award of interest is dependent on the claim being allowed
Should the claim be not allowed
the question of grant of interest would not arise
and if awardable it is in addition to the amount of compensation
The Court of Tribunal in these circumstances should deter mine in the first instance claim for compensation and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof but as an additive to the amount of compensation
So the addition of interest to the compensation by judicial discretion is sequential in the eye of law and no claim in that regard specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim petition
The grant of interest is not dependent on any pleading in that regard and can even be orally asked if the contingency arises
5B D In these circumstances there is no substance in the attack to the grant of interest
5D 12 The incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to be viewed not only in presenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period
This head being totally different cannot overlap the grant of compensation under the head of pain suffering and loss of enjoyment of life
One head relates to the impairment of a person s capacity to earn the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself
5F G In the instant case the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is a resultant and permanent fact occa sioned by the nature of injuries received by the claimant and the ordeal he had to undergo
This on the face of it is a distinct head quite apart from the inability to earn livelihood on the basis of incapacity or disability which is quite different
If money be any solace the grant of Rs20000 to the claimant represents that solace
Money solace is the answer discovered by the Law of Torts
No substitute has yet been found to replace the element of money
5E F 13 In the facts and circumstances of this case there is no scope for further enhancement of compensation and further enhancement of interest