JUDGMENT 1. - On 6.4.1970, Lalmohammed and Ahsan Ali (since deceased) filed suit against defendant Shivbratlal (petitioner before us) in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur, for arrears of rent and ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. During the pendency of the suit, Lalmohammed expired on October 23, 1971. Plaintiff Ahsan Ali filed an application for bringing the two daughters of Lalmohammed on record as legal representatives of Lalmohammed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another application dated 6.2.1973 wherein it was mentioned that Lalmohammed, by a registered dated October 14, 1971, relinquished his rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Ahsan Ali and as such, he had been the absolute owner of the property in dispute and there was no necessity of bringing the legal representative of Lalmohammed on record. It was further prayed that Lalmohammed's name may be erased from the array of parties. Ahsan Ali did not file a copy of the relinquishment deed. He, however, urged before the learned Munsif that after the termination of the tenancy, the defendant became trespasser and as such, he was entitled to continue the suit without bringing the legal representatives of Lalmohammed on record. In support of the above contention, he placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramnarain v. Kishorilal, 1963 RLW 459. The petition was opposed by the defendant and ultimately learned Munsif, view order dated 22.10.1973, allowed the application filed by Ahsan Ali. 3. Being aggrieved by the above-noted order, the defendant filed a revision before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 522 of 1973 which came up for decisions before Hon'ble Sen, J. (as he the was). The learned Judge doubted the correctness of decision relied upon by the learned Munsif and as such, referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for forming a larger Bench. Thus, this case comes before us. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed on record a certified copy along with a photostat copy of the registered relinquishment deed dated 14.10.1971 executed by Lalmohammed in favour of Ahsan Ali and his mother Smt. Asiyan, widow of Shri Ramzan Ali. Thus, this case comes before us. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed on record a certified copy along with a photostat copy of the registered relinquishment deed dated 14.10.1971 executed by Lalmohammed in favour of Ahsan Ali and his mother Smt. Asiyan, widow of Shri Ramzan Ali. The effect of the relinquishment deed has not been considered by the learned Munsif because it was not produced before him and as such, it will be open to the concerned party to make an application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. if so advised.Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that a tenant who holds possession under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), holds possession as statutory tenant and the termination of tenancy is not admissible under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A statutory tenant cannot be termed to be a trespasser. That apart, the word 'tenant' as defined in Section 3 sub-cl. (vii)(a) of the Act, reads as under:- "3(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 termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and (b).. ... ... ... ... .." A bare perusal of the above noted Section itself shows that even after termination of the tenancy, a tenant who holds possession over the land in the capacity of tenant remains a tenant and does not becomes a trespasser. In view of the changed definition of 'tenant' by the Amendment Act, the ruling relied upon by the Court is of no avail to the respondent. In view of the changed definition of 'tenant' by the Amendment Act, the ruling relied upon by the Court is of no avail to the respondent. If, after determination of the tenancy, the tenant remains in possession and the landlord accepts rent from him or otherwise assents to his continuance in possession, the tenancy is, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year or month to month according to the purpose for which the property is leased but even if the landlord does not accept the rent or otherwise does not assent to his continuance, the tenant, under the provisions of the Act, does acquire juridical possession of the property and cannot be deprived of such possession, except in due course of law and the landlord cannot dispossess the tenant without his consent and if the landlord does so the tenant has a right to recover possession by resorting to the remedy provided under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The position of erstwhile tenant remaining in possession of the property after determination of the lease is thus fundamentally different from that of a trespasser. Whereas a trespasser is never in juridical possession of the property and he can always be thrown out if a landlord can do so peaceably, the possession of an erstwhile tenant is judicial one and he is protected from dispossession otherwise than in due course of laws. Therefore, so far as the law relating to premises and rent control is concerned, tenant remain in possession of the property after determination of the lease and can never become a trespasser. Even otherwise, as already noted above, under the amended definition of 'tenant' under the Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner become a trespasser. Therefore, so far as the law relating to premises and rent control is concerned, tenant remain in possession of the property after determination of the lease and can never become a trespasser. Even otherwise, as already noted above, under the amended definition of 'tenant' under the Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner become a trespasser. But so far as the case in hand is concerned, Lalmohmmed had relinquished his right during the pendency of the suit and one of persons in whose favour the rights have been relinquished is Ahsan Ahmed who is on record and as such, the question of abatement of the whole suit does not arise.The net result of the above possession is that now, under the changed position of law, and the law enunciated by us above, a tenant holding possession under the provisions of the Act, cannot be termed a trespasser and all the co-owners are required to file a suit against him for eviction.The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.1973, passed by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur, is set aside. It will be open to the plaintiff to move an application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C which will be decided by the learned Munsif according to law after giving notice to the defendant and taking into consideration the arguments which may be advanced before him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this revision.Petition allowed. *******