Case: DR. R S GREWAL  Vs. CHANDER PARKASH SONI

2. Dr Hira Singh was the owner of a residential house (shown in the site plan filed together with the suit) together with some shops constructed on property bearing Municipal No B-XX-69 (Old) 515 (New) at College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. The family pedigree is depicted16 September 1944, Dr Hira Singh executed a will by which he bequeathed his property to his son, Shiv Dev Singh Grewal, subject to a right of residence for his widowed daughter, Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal in the property situated at Civil Lines, Ludhiana. The will contains the followingown a kothi on Iqbal Road opposite to Govt. College in Civil Lines. I have myself purchased its land and I also reside in this Kothi and some outer portion thereof has been given ontestator made a disposition in the following terms in favour of hismy death, my son Shivdev Singh will be the absolute owner of my property, mentioned above, situate in village Gujarwal i.e. land and houses owned by me as well as the mortgaged land. My son Shivdev Singh will also be the owner of the money which is due towill adverted to the fact that some portion of the property at Civil Lines was in the occupation of tenants. According to the will, the rent recovered was to be spent for the education and maintenance of a young child - Shiv Charan Kaur, who was brought up by the testator. A life interest in the property at Civil Lines was created in favour of Shiv Dev Kaur, the daughter of the testator in the followingdaughter Bibi Shivdev Kaur will get this Kothi situated on Iqbal Road till her life time subject to the abovesaid rights of Bibi Shiv Charan Kaur and that after my death Shivdev Kaur would be entitled to settle and reside in this Kothi as and when necessary and can spend the income from rent on herself. But these rights shall ensure to her till her life time. She will not be entitled to transfer or burden this Kothi along with the attached land nor could she mortgage, gift the same, nor could she sell or exchange it. This Kothi shall also be the sole ownership of my son Shivdev Singh subject to the above mentioned rights. Through this will I appoint my aforesaid son Shivdev Singh as my executor but he shall act according to the recitals in this will and shall arrange for the maintenance and marriage of Bibi Shiv Charan Kaur and after recovering the rent of the concerned portion of the Kothi, he shall spend the same in accordance with the above mentionedtestator?s son, who was a legatee under the will, was also appointed as an executor. The testator died in 1945. His son died on 14 August 1968. The first appellant is the grandson of the testator, while the second and third appellants are the sons of the first appellant.3. A suit for possession was instituted by the appellants and by proforma respondent no 2 against the first respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana. The first respondent is a tenant inducted by Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal. The foundation of the suit was that Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal was only entitled to a life interest in the property in terms of the will executed by her father and upon her death the appellants were entitled to possession of the shop from the defendant. The plea that was set up in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the plaint was in the followingThat Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal has died on 15.2.1998 and on her death her right to live in the main kothi alongwith right to utilize the usufruct of the main house and the shops came to an end. The plaintiffs became entitled to the possession of the main house and the shops came to an end. The plaintiffs became entitled to the possession of the main house as well as the shops on the main road being the owners of property No.B-XX 69 (od) 515(new), college road, civil lines, Ludhiana.15 That defendant claims that he has taken the shop in his possession on rent as a tenant from Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal and as such refuses to vacate the shop and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiffs who are the real owners. The claim of the defendant is false. Defendant has no right in shop and cannot claim himself to be a tenant. Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal had no right to let out the property. She could only enjoy the usufruct of the main house. In any case any tenancy is created by Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal, that shall not bind the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners of the property. Without prejudice to the plea of the plaintiffs that Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal could not let the property, it is submitted that even if any tenancy existed as being claimed by the defendant which had allegedly been created by Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal, that comes to an end with the death of Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal and the possession of the defendant is become unlawful only from date of death of Dr Shivdev Kaur and as such the defendant is not entitled to continue in occupation of shop as a tenant. The alleged tenancy stood terminated and extinguished with the death of Dr Shivdev Kaur Grewal. The plaintiffs being the lawful owners are entitled to possession of the shop. The plaintiffs are being denied possession of the shop by thethe written statement, a plea was raised that Shiv Dev Kaur was not a limited owner of the property. Moreover, it was pleaded that the defendant was in occupation as a tenant and a suit for possession was not maintainable. Assuming that the appellants had become owners as alleged, it was contended that the tenancy shall stand attorned to them after the death of Shiv Dev Kaur. On these grounds, it was urged that the suit for possession was not maintainable.4. The suit for possession was decreed and the first appeal was dismissed. The basis of the decree for possession was that Shiv Dev Kaur had only a limited right in the property which had not converted into an absolute ownership and hence on her death the property would revert back to Dr Shiv Dev Singh. The judgment of the trial Court as confirmed in appeal was the subject matter of a second appeal before the High Court. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions ofWhether the defendants continue to be tenants even after the change of the ownership; and2 Whether the possession of the tenant becomes unlawful the moment there was a change ofHigh Court while setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur had created a tenancy in favour of the defendant and the relationship of landlord and tenant did not cease to exist on her death. The remedy of the appellants as owners was to seek eviction under prevailing rent control legislation and not by means of a suit for possession, treating the first respondent as trespasser. On this ground, the decree for possession was set aside, though with the observation that this would not preclude the appellants from seeking ejectment of the first respondent on any of the grounds available under the applicable rent control legislation.

Reasoning:
7. While dealing with the rival submissions it is necessary at the outset to clear the ground in regard to the nature of the interest which Shiv Dev Kaur obtained under the will executed by her father, Dr Hira Singh, on 16 September 1944. This issue has been the subject of an adjudication by this Court in Shivdev Kaur (supra). A brief background of the circumstances leading up to the adjudication by this Court would be necessary. Shiv Dev Kaur, claiming rights under the will, instituted a suit against her nephew for a mandatory injunction seeking his eviction from the suit premises. She asserted a right of absolute ownership by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The suit was contested. During the pendency of the suit the defendant instituted a suit against Shiv Dev Kaur for a permanent injunction restraining her from alienating the property. The trial Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur did not have absolute ownership over the property and that she was not entitled to interfere in respect of the agricultural lands and other property. The trail Court held that she could not be dispossessed from the suit premises, subject to the final decision of another suit. The appellate court confirmed the view that Shiv Dev Kaur did not have an absolute right of ownership. The High Court held against Shiv Dev Kaur in a second appeal. In appeal, this Court had to construe the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.two Judge Bench of this Court held that since Shiv Dev Kaur had acquired only a life interest under the will of her father, the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 14 would apply and her restricted interest had not been crystallised into absolute ownership. Dr Justice BS Chauhan, J, speaking for the two Judge Bench heldThus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that if a Hindu female has been given only a ?life interest?, through will or gift or any other document referred to in Section 14 of the 1956 Act, the said rights would not stand crystallised into absolute ownership as interpreting the provisions to the effect that she would acquire absolute ownership/title into the property by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act, the provisions of Sections 14(2) and 30 of the 1956 Act would become otiose. Section 14(2) carves out an exception to the rule provided in sub-section (1) thereof, which clearly provides that if a property has been acquired by a Hindu female by a will or gift, giving her only a ?life interest?, it would remain the same even after commencement of the 1956 Act, and such a Hindu female cannot acquire absolutethe concurrent finding that Shiv Dev Kaur did not acquire an absolute title was affirmed.8. The adjudication in the present case must hence proceed on the foundation that Shiv Dev Kaur had a life interest in the property.Now reading the will executed by Dr Hira Singh on 16 September 1944, it is evident that while his son Shiv Dev Singh Grewal was to be the absolute owner of his properties upon the death of the testator, a life interest was created in favour of Shiv Dev Kaur. She was?entitled to settle and reside in this kothi as and when necessary? and ?could spend the income from rent on herself? during her lifetime. However, she was not entitled to transfer, mortgage, sell or gift the property. In consequence, the testator directed that his son would ensure that the rent that was recovered would be spent in accordance with the directions contained in the will. The testator?s priority was to ensure that following his death his widowed daughter had adequate financial means. Expenses for the repairing of the property and for the payment of land revenue were to be paid by Shiv Dev Kaur during her lifetime. The disposition specifically contemplated her entitlement to spend the income received by way of rent on herself. Creation of a tenancy was an incident of the life interest which she had. It was means of her generating rental income to sustain herself. This was authorised by the will.11. But the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that the life interest being personal to Shiv Dev Kaur, the tenancy which she created would stand terminated with her death. In other words, according to the appellants, with the death of Shiv Dev Kaur, the first respondent became a trespasser on the property and was liable to be removed in consequence of the decree for possession.12. This submission cannot be accepted both as a matter of first principle and having regard to the precedent on the subject.landlord within the meaning of Section 2(c) is not necessarily the owner of the property. The definition of the expression ‘landlord? is relatable to an entitlement to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land. The inclusive definition of ‘landlord? under Section 2(c) would take in its sweep Shiv Dev Kaur who held a life interest in the property.The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 are available to the tenant. The tenant has a protected status. That status cannot be disrupted or brought to an end except on grounds specified in the enactment. The first respondent in whose favour the tenancy was created would be covered under the definition of the expression ‘tenant? in Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949. The status of a statutory tenant enures as a consequence of rent control legislation. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 aims at regulating conditions of tenancy, controlling rents and preventing unreasonable eviction of tenants. For the advancement of these objects, tenants are invested with rights and landlords are subjected to obligations. The first respondent in whose favour a tenancy was created acquired a status of a statutory tenant and that status does not stand obviated by the death of Shiv Dev Kaur. The remedy available to the appellants to remove the first respondent from the property is by pursuing eviction proceedings on one or more of the grounds available in the enactment. Section 13 lays down the procedure for eviction of tenants. Only upon the satisfaction of the Controller that sufficient grounds exist for eviction of the tenant can an order be passed directing the tenant to vacate the premises. The protection offered to a statutory tenant can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in thestatutory protection granted for the benefit of the tenants under specific tenancy laws is to be viewed from a standpoint of protecting the interests of a particular class. Restrictions on recovery of possession of the premises let out to the tenants have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants as a matter of legislative policy.16. There is a fallacy in the submission which was urged on behalf of the appellant. The appellant postulates that a life interest is personal to the person who possesses it and the creation of a tenancy which will enure beyond her life amounts to a transfer of the life interest. What the submission overlooks is that the creation of the tenancy was an act of the person enjoying a life interest in the present case and was an incident of the authority of that individual to generate income from the property for her own sustenance. The creation of a tenancy is an incident of the exercise of such an authority. The protection which is conferred upon the tenant against eviction, except on specified grounds, arises as a consequence of statutory prescription under rent control legislation. The reason why the tenant is entitled to occupy the premises beyond the life time of the landlord who created the tenancy is simply as a result of a statutory enactment, in this case, the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949. It is the intervention of a legislative mandate which enures to the benefit of the tenant. Once this has taken place, it was not open to the civil court to entertain a suit for possession founded on the hypothesis that the tenant is a trespasser.