[2023] 2 S.C.R.

1135 1135

YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. A

v.
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2855-2856 of 2011)
MARCH 21, 2023 B
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,
1947 – ss.13(1)(e) and 15 – Eviction under – Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2,
the predecessors-in-title of the appellants filed suit for recovery of
possession of the leased premises from the tenant – It was their case C
that the tenant parted with the running of the hotel/premises and
possession of the same was given to a third person – Lease deed
recorded that business of hotel was the independent business of the
tenant and he would not assign the business or transfer the same to
any third person – Trial Court decreed suit on the ground of creation
D
of sub-tenancy – Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in
Appellate Court – High Court held that the legal possession remained
with the tenant and mere creation of a partnership agreement by
the tenant for the purpose of jointly carrying on business in the
leased premises would not amount to sub-letting – Decree of eviction/
possession was set aside – On appeal, held: Tenant did not stop E
short at executing the partnership agreement but went on to execute
the assignment agreement, whereby he assigned his hotel business
in the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money
– The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in itself
to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory
F
mandate u/ss. 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Therefore, judgment of High
Court set aside – Judgment of trial Court and Appellate Court
affirmed.
Allowing the appeals and I.As, the Court
HELD 1. The Lease Deed is stated to have recorded G
unequivocally in page 4 that the business of Hotel is the
independent business of the tenant and that he would not assign
the business and would not allow third persons to conduct the
said business in any way nor would he transfer the said business
in any way in favour of a third person. [Para 21][1145-C]
H
1135
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. Given the clear proscription in the lease deed, duly

endorsed by the explicit language of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15(1)
of the Act of 1947, the very execution of the assignment agreement
dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby the tenant admittedly
assigned his business in the leasehold premises in favour of a
third person for ` 2,00,000/- and accepted a sum of ` 50,000/- as
B
earnest money, was sufficient in itself to establish transgression
of the lease condition and the statutory mandate. This court has
earlier laid down the principle that the mere execution of a
genuine partnership deed by a tenant, whereby he/she converted
a sole proprietary concern into a partnership business, while
C continuing to actively participate in the business and retaining
control over the tenanted premises wherein the business is being
run, would not amount to sub-letting. However, that principle
has no role to play in the case on hand. Tenant did not stop short
at executing the partnership agreement dated 01.01.1985
(Exh.48) but went on to execute the assignment agreement dated
D
15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby he assigned his hotel business in
the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money
also. The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in
itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the
statutory mandate and did not require anything further. [Para
E 22][1145-E-H]
Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam and Others (2004) 4
SCC 794 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 610; Mahendra Saree
Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC
481 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 931 – referred to.
F Case Law Reference
[2004 ] 1 Suppl. SCR 610 referred to Para 22
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 931 referred to Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2855-
G 2856 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2008 of the High Court
of Bombay in WP No.1067 of 1992 and dated 09.09.2009 in RP No.75
of 2009.
With
H
 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. v. 1137
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE

I.A. Nos. 89837-89838 of 2021 and 38142-38143 of 2023. A

Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. These civil appeals arise out of the judgment dated 03.12.2008
of the Bombay High Court, allowing Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1992, and
its later judgment dated 09.09.2009, dismissing Review Petition No. 75
of 2009 in W.P No. 1067 of 1992, respectively. In turn, W.P No. 1067 of C
1992 filed by Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the respondent herein, arose
out of the judgment dated 21.12.1991 of the learned 13th Additional District
Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 1987, confirming the judgment
dated 30.09.1987 of the learned II Additional S.C. Judge, Pune, in C.S.
No. 386 of 1985. D
2. C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was filed by late Ramachandra Maruti
Jagadale, plaintiff No.2, and his wife, late Sou. Rangubai Jagadale, plaintiff
No.1, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants herein, for recovery of
possession of the leased premises bearing C.T.S No. 1873 at Bhamburda,
Pune, from the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide. By judgment dated
E
30.09.1987, the Trial Court decreed their suit, holding them entitled to
claim eviction of the tenant under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents,
Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the
Act of 1947’). Two months’ time was granted to the tenant to vacate
the premises. This judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal
by the learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, vide judgment dated F
21.12.1991.
3. It is against these judgments that the tenant, viz., the respondent
herein, filed W.P. No. 1067 of 1992 before the Bombay High Court. By
its judgment dated 03.12.2008, the High Court opined that a case of sub-
tenancy was not made out, warranting eviction of the tenant on that G
ground, and quashed the decree of eviction/ possession. In consequence,
C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the legal
representatives of the deceased plaintiffs, who were on record in the
writ petition, filed Review Petition No. 75 of 2009. However, by its
judgment dated 09.09.2009, the High Court reiterated its finding that the
H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A tenant had never parted with possession of the leased premises and had
never left the premises, being a partner. Holding so, the High Court
concluded that there was no error on the face of the record and dismissed
the review petition. Presently, these two judgments are under appeal.
4. While so, the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the sole
B respondent in these appeals, expired on 16.02.2018. Thereupon, the
appellants filed I.A. No. 89838 of 2021 seeking condonation of the delay
of 1169 days in taking steps and I.A. No. 89837 of 2021 to set aside the
abatement of the appeals and to permit substitution of the legal heirs of
the deceased respondent. Notice having been ordered thereon, Mr.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel, who had earlier appeared for
C the deceased respondent, e-filed his vakalatnama/appearance on behalf
of the legal representatives on 05.11.2022. No counter was filed by him
opposing the applications. Sufficient cause having been shown, delay in
taking necessary steps is condoned; abatement of the appeals is set
aside; and legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent are
D brought on record. Registry shall make necessary changes in the cause
titles in both the appeals before issuing certified copies of this judgment.
5. Heard Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, appearing
for the appellants; and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondents.
E 6. The leased premises, consisting of two blocks with an
approximate area of 455 sq. ft., are situated on the ground floor on the
eastern side of the cement-concrete building, bearing C.T.S No. 1873 at
Bhamburda, Pune. These premises were let out to the tenant by the
original landlord and landlady, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants,
F for the purpose of his hotel business under the name and style of Hotel
Ambika. Civil Suit No. 386 of 1985 was filed by the landlord and landlady
for eviction of the tenant on two grounds. Their claim was that the tenant
carried out unauthorized construction of a toilet in the leased premises,
thereby violating the mandate of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1947. It
was also their case that the tenant parted with the running of the hotel
G and possession of the leased premises in favour of one Krishna B Shetty,
thereby committing breach of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1947. These
grounds are borne out by the plaint filed in the suit, which is sought to be
placed on record, by way of I.A. No. 38142 of 2023, along with a
photocopy of Section 15 of the Act of 1947. I.A. No. 38143 of 2023 was
H filed seeking exemption from filing an official translation of the plaint.
 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. v. 1139
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

The I.A.s are allowed. The documents are taken on record and exemption, A
as prayed for, is granted.
7. The tenant filed a Written Statement denying the suit claims.
Thereupon, the Trial Court settled three issues for consideration. The
plaintiffs examined three witnesses, including plaintiff No. 2, while the
defendant examined himself as DW1. B
8. Plaintiff No. 2, speaking as PW1, stated that the suit premises
was leased out to the tenant in the year 1975 for running his hotel business.
He asserted that the tenant constructed a toilet in the leased premises in
January, 1985, without obtaining his consent and 2-4 days later, he sold
his rights in the hotel to Krishna B Shetty for a sum of ` 2,00,000/- and C
accepted ` 50,000/- as earnest money. He claimed that Krishna B Shetty
was running the hotel in the leased premises thereafter for about eleven
months. He further stated that in November, 1985, there was a dispute
between the tenant and Krishna B Shetty, which led to the sealing of the
premises, and finally the key thereof was handed over by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to the tenant and, thereafter, Krishna B Shetty did D
not operate the hotel.
9. PW2, the Advocate-Commissioner, stated in her first report
(Exh.8) that Krishna B Shetty was in occupation of the leased hotel
premises when she visited the same. In her subsequent report (Exh.23),
she stated that she found no trace of a toilet constructed in the leased E
premises.
10. Krishna B Shetty was examined as PW3. He stated that he
intended to purchase the hotel from the tenant and had taken possession
in January, 1985. He stated that the price was settled at ` 2,00,000/- and
he paid ` 50,000/- by way of earnest money at the time of execution of F
the agreement. He asserted that the tenant illegally evicted him from the
hotel premises, constraining him to file a complaint and also a suit for
specific performance.
11. The tenant examined himself as DW1. In his examination-in-
chief, he claimed that he had not given the hotel business to Krishna B G
Shetty or anyone else and that Krishna B Shetty was not given possession
of the leased premises at any time. However, during his cross-
examination, he admitted that he was carrying on hotel business in the
leased premises with the name ‘Hotel Ambika’ and in the year 1984, he
thought of admitting a partner to run the hotel. As Krishna B Shetty was
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A also in the same business, he stated that he had talks with him about
joining the business. He denied that Krishna B Shetty was allowed by
him to join as a partner in January, 1985. He, however, admitted his
signatures in the partnership agreement executed in that regard (Exh.48)
and conceded that his own Advocate had purchased the stamp paper
and drafted the said agreement. He denied that Krishna B Shetty
B
performed Satyanarayan Pooja on 07.01.1985, after execution of the
partnership agreement, but admitted that the Invitation Card (Exh.44)
issued on that occasion bore his name. He also admitted his signatures
in the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49). He denied that
Krishna B Shetty was running the hotel as his own business in his individual
C capacity and that he forcibly dispossessed him in January, 1986. He
admitted that proceedings were initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. but
asserted that final orders were passed in his favour.
12. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Trial
Court answered the three issues framed by it as under: -
D

13. The Trial Court held against the plaintiffs in so far as the
ground under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1947 was concerned, as the
G Advocate Commissioner’s second report (Exh.23) showed no trace of
a toilet having been constructed in the leased premises. However, as
regards the ground raised under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1947, the
finding was otherwise. The Trial Court took note of the admitted execution
of the partnership agreement dated 01.01.1985 (Exh.48), whereby the
tenant accepted Krishna B Shetty as a partner in his hotel business.
H
 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. v. 1141
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

Further, the Trial Court noted that the Invitation Card (Exh.44) for the A
Satyanarayan Pooja, mentioned the name of Hotel Ambika, the name of
the tenant and the name of the new partner, Krishna B Shetty. The Trial
Court also noted that the tenant admitted his signatures in the assignment
agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby he had assigned his hotel
business in the leased premises to Krishna B Shetty for ` 2,00,000/- and
B
accepted ` 50,000/- as earnest money. It was accordingly held that
Krishna B Shetty was taken as a partner in the business initially but,
thereafter, the business was sold to him for ` 2,00,000/-. The Trial Court
observed that the original lease deed dated 22.01.1975 (Exh.55) stated
clearly in page 4 that the tenant would not assign the business and would
not allow third persons to conduct the said business in any way nor C
would he transfer the said business in any way in favour of a third person.
The Trial Court then adverted to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1947, which
provides that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the tenant
would not be entitled to sublet or transfer or give on licence the leased
premises and also the proviso thereto, which allowed the Government,
D
by way of a notification in the Official Gazette, to permit in any area
transfer of interest in premises held under leases or a class of leases to
such extent as may be specified in the notification. As the conditions of
the proviso were not satisfied on facts and in the light of the clear
prohibition of assignment in the lease deed, the Trial Court decreed the
suit. E
14. The learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, affirmed
these findings of the Trial Court and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1030 of
1987 filed by the tenant. The Bombay High Court, however, reversed
the findings of both the Courts below. While accepting that there was
material to show that the tenant had assigned his business in favour of F
Krishna B Shetty, the High Court took recourse to the proviso to Section
15(1) of the Act of 1947 and held that it was permissible thereunder for
a statutory tenant to transfer his tenancy rights even though the lease
agreement prohibited such a transfer. Further, the High Court took note
of the fact that Civil Suit No. 623 of 1986 filed by Krishna B Shetty
against the tenant for specific performance had been dismissed. G
According to the High Court, so long as the legal possession remained
with the tenant, mere creation of a partnership agreement by the tenant
for the purpose of jointly carrying on business in the leased premises
would not amount to sub-letting. Holding so, the High Court set aside the
decree of eviction/possession and dismissed the suit. By its later judgment H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A dated 09.09.2009, the High Court dismissed the Review Petition filed by
the appellants herein, reiterating that the tenant had never parted with or
left the premises and, being a partner, he was also involved in the business.
Observing that the dominant purpose of the agreement executed by the
tenant was not to sub-let the premises, the High Court opined that there
was no error on the face of the record warranting exercise of review
B
jurisdiction.
15. At this stage, we may note that neither of the parties thought
it appropriate to place on record all the documents that they considered
relevant. The original lease deed dated 22.01.1975 (Exh.55), relied upon
by Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, is not available for scrutiny.
C Similarly, the judgment in Civil Suit No. 623 of 1986, filed against the
tenant by Krishna B Shetty, relied upon by the High Court and
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel, was not produced prior
to conclusion of the hearing of these appeals. However, the learned
counsel deemed it fit to enclose a copy of the said judgment along with
D his Written Submissions, after this judgment was reserved. As the said
document was not placed on record in keeping with due procedure and
at the appropriate time, it is liable to be eschewed from consideration.
More so, as the sole respondent entered appearance through counsel as
long back as in January, 2011, and had ample opportunity to do the needful
even if the said judgment did not form part of the record before the High
E Court. This Court is, therefore, constrained to adjudicate on the strength
of the material available on record.
16. The issue for consideration is whether the tenant committed
breach of the lease condition with regard to assignment of his business
in the leased premises, warranting his eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of
F the Act of 1947. Though the tenant denied the same, Mr. Vinay Navare,
learned senior counsel, would assert that the admissions made by him
during his deposition as DW1 speak volumes to the contrary. He would
point out that the tenant categorically admitted execution of the partnership
agreement dated 01.01.1985 (Exh.48) and the assignment agreement
G dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), apart from conceding that the Invitation Card
(Exh.44), issued in connection with the Satyanarayan Pooja performed
in the hotel, mentioned his name along with those of Hotel Ambika and
Krishna B Shetty.
17. Countering these contentions, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
H learned counsel, would argue that execution of a partnership deed by
 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. v. 1143
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

the tenant, whereby a third party was inducted into the business as a A
partner, is of no consequence. He would point out that the partnership
agreement dated 01.01.1985 (Exh.48) mentioned that the business would
be undertaken as a partnership with the tenant; his brother, Laxman;
and Krishna B Shetty, as partners and that the relevant clause in the said
document, marked as Exh.51, indicated that Krishna B Shetty would
B
look after the business transactions. He would place reliance on
Parvinder Singh Vs. Renu Gautam and others1 and Mahendra Saree
Emporium (II) Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy2 in support of his contention
that such a business arrangement would not amount to creation of an
assignment or sub-tenancy.
18. In Parvinder Singh (supra), this Court observed that if the C
tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains
the use and control over the tenanted premises with him, maybe along
with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with possession,
but if the user and control of the tenanted premises has been parted with
and the deed of partnership has been drawn up as an indirect method of D
collecting consideration for creation of a sub-tenancy or for providing a
cloak to conceal a transaction not permitted by law, the Court is not
estopped from tearing the veil of partnership and finding out the real
nature of the transaction entered into between the tenant and the alleged
sub-tenant.
E
19. This Court observed in Mahendra Saree Emporium (supra)
that the transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property to the exclusion
of all others during the term of the lease is the sine qua non of a lease
under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and a sub-
lease would imply parting with, by the tenant, of the right to enjoy such
property in favour of his sub-tenant. This Court further noted that the F
phraseology employed for inferring sub-letting is quite wide and would
embrace within its scope sub-letting of the whole or part of the premises
as also assignment or transfer in any other manner of the lessee’s interest
in the tenanted premises. On facts, however, it was held that the tenant
therein had not created a sub-tenancy merely by converting his sole G
proprietary business into a partnership business and as the tenant never
dissociated himself from the business activity.

1
(2004) 4 SCC 794
2
(2005) 1 SCC 481 H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 20. It would be apposite at this stage to peruse the relevant

statutory provisions, viz., Section 13(1)(e) and Section 15(1) of the Act
of 1947. They read as under: -
‘Section 13 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, but subject to the provisions of Section 15, a landlord
B shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the
Court is satisfied-
(a) - (d) ……
(e) that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this
Act unlaw-fully sub-let the whole or part of the premises or
C assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest
therein; or
(ee)……..’
‘Section 15 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
D law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be
lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any
tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to
him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest
therein and after the date of commencement of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment)
E Act, 1973, for any tenant to give on licence the whole or part
of such premises
Provided that the State Government may by notification
in the Official Gazette permit in any area the transfer of
interest in premises held under such leases or class of leases
F or the giving on licence any premises or class of premises
and to such extent as may be specified in the notification.’
The aforestated provisions make it crystal clear that, in the ordinary
course and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, unless
the contract itself permits sub-letting, it shall not be lawful, after coming
G into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sub-let the premises let
out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein. The
proviso to Section 15(1), however, authorizes the State Government to
permit, in any area, transfer of interest in premises held under leases or
a class of leases, by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette, duly
delineating the extent to which such transfer is permitted. Presently, it is
H
 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. v. 1145
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

nobody’s case that a notification was issued by the State Government A

having application to the case on hand. Viewed thus, reliance placed by
the High Court upon this provision was wholly misconceived. In the
absence of such a notification by the State Government, the issue is
whether the tenant could have assigned his leasehold interest in favour
of Krishna B Shetty under the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985
B
(Exh.49), overriding the condition in the lease deed to the contrary.
21. It is in this context that the prohibitory condition in the lease
deed dated 22.01.1975 (Exh.55) assumes importance. The Trial Court
and the Appellate Court extracted the gist of the said lease condition in
their judgments. The Lease Deed is stated to have recorded unequivocally
in page 4 that the business of Hotel Ambika is the independent business C
of the tenant and that he would not assign the business and would not
allow third persons to conduct the said business in any way nor would he
transfer the said business in any way in favour of a third person.
Therefore, there is a clear interdiction against transfer or assignment by
the tenant of the business being run in the leasehold premises in favour D
of a third person.
22. Given the clear proscription in the lease deed, duly endorsed
by the explicit language of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15(1) of the Act of
1947, the very execution of the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985
(Exh.49), whereby the tenant admittedly assigned his business in the E
leasehold premises in favour of Krishna B Shetty for ` 2,00,000/- and
accepted a sum of ` 50,000/- as earnest money, was sufficient in itself
to establish transgression of the lease condition and the statutory mandate.
No doubt, the earlier decisions of this Court, referred to hereinabove,
laid down the principle that the mere execution of a genuine partnership
deed by a tenant, whereby he/she converted a sole proprietary concern F
into a partnership business, while continuing to actively participate in the
business and retaining control over the tenanted premises wherein the
business is being run, would not amount to sub-letting. However, that
principle has no role to play in the case on hand as the tenant did not stop
short at executing the partnership agreement dated 01.01.1985 (Exh.48) G
but went on to execute the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985
(Exh.49), whereby he assigned his hotel business in the leased premises
to Krishna B Shetty and received earnest money also. The very act of
execution of this document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach
of the lease condition and the statutory mandate and did not require
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A anything further. Therefore, the subsequent failure of Krishna B Shetty

in his specific performance suit in Civil Suit No. 623 of 1986, be it for
whatever reason, is of absolutely no relevance or consequence. All the
more so, as the landlord and landlady were admittedly not parties thereto
and the judgment rendered in the said suit was not even placed on record
as per due procedure and at the relevant time. Irrespective of the result
B
in the said suit, the ineluctable fact remains that the tenant admitted
execution of the assignment agreement (Exh.49) and that singular fact
settled the issue as to whether there was an act of assignment on his
part. The High Court seems to have lost sight of this crucial aspect.
23. We, therefore, find on facts that the tenant admitted committing
C a breach of the lease condition with regard to assignment of his leasehold
interest in favour of a third party, when he signed the assignment
agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49) for a consideration of
` 2,00,000/- and received ` 50,000/- as earnest money. The breach being
complete on his part upon such execution itself, the failure of the assignee,
D Krishna B Shetty, in his suit for specific performance against the tenant
is of no import.
24. The impugned judgments of the Bombay High Court are
accordingly set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court, as affirmed by
the Appellate Court, shall stand restored. In consequence, the respondents
E herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, shall vacate
the suit premises and hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof
to the appellants within 2 months, failing which the appellants shall be at
liberty to initiate execution proceedings before the competent court.
25. The appeals and the I.As are allowed. There shall be no order
F as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeals and I.As allowed.

(Assisted by : Shivani Pundir and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)