( 1 ) THIS revision peti ion is instituted by the legal representatives of the tenant and is directed against the order dated 19-4-1975, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in HRC. Appeal No. 75 of 1972 on his file, dismissing the appeal of the LRs. of the tenant. ( 2 ) THE landlord instituted action agains, the tenant, after terminating the tenancy, under Scc. 21 (1) (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control acl, 1961, before the Munsiff, Belgaum. The learned Munsiff, appreciating the evidence en record, upheld the claim of the landlord and allowed the petition of the landlord with costs, granting three months to the tenant to vacate. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant went up in appeal before the District Judge, Belgaum. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant died and his LRs came on record. The learned District judge held that the LRs of the tenant could not be allowed to contest the proceeding on merit and in that view, he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the LRs. of the tenant have preferred the present Revision Petition. ( 3 ) THE only pont that arises for my consideration is whether it is competent for the LRs. of the tenant, against whom a decree was passed, to contest the decree on merits. This Court in the case of Sundar Raj v. Kamalammam, (1975) 2 Kar. L. J. 459 has ruled that the LRs. of the statutory tenant cannot contest the proceedings on meri s. It is observed that Sec. 51 of the Act provides for continuation of eviction proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and that it does not confer any right on the LRs. of the deceased statutory tenant to contest on merits unless they set up an independent right of tenancy to the non-residential premises. The same view was taken in an earlier decision of this Court in the case of S. P. Hamisha Chandsha v. Seshagiri Bhiku Pai, (1973) 1 Kar. L. J. 127. ( 4 ) THE lerned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, however, invited my attention to a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Damadilal v. Parasharam,air. 1870 SC 2229. L. J. 127. ( 4 ) THE lerned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, however, invited my attention to a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Damadilal v. Parasharam,air. 1870 SC 2229. Therein, their Lordships of the Supreme court discussing the provisions of MP Accommodation Control Act, have observed that the concept of statutory tenancy prevailing in england cannot be bodily lifted into the provisions of our Act and that the meaning of the term should be understood in the light of the provisions made in the Legislation in our country. The provision of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, defining the term 'tenant', is quoted in the decision. That does not provide for the 'transmission of the statutory tenancy as such. In the Karnataka Act, Section 3 (r) defines the rerm 'tenant' and inter alia it provides for the transmission of 'the statutory tenancy. It states 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant. It clearly indicates that the Legislature in its wisdom does not provide for transmission of tenancy in the case of non-residential premises. It positively states that only the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the, tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family is entitled to the protection by transmission. It clearly excludes a non-residential premises That being so, the ruling of the supreme Court cited before me, would not in any way help to further the case of the Revision petitioner. The premises admfttedly are non-residential. A decree is passed against the tenant for eviction and the lrs. of the tenant would not get any interest and right in the premises. Hence, they have no locus standi to contest the proceeding on merits. ( 5 ) IN the result, I hold that there is no merit in the Revision petition and I dismiss the same. Three months' time is granted to the LRs. of thq tenant to vacate the premises. No costs. --- *** --- .