(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. (2) IN view of the Constitution bench decision in Gian Devi Anand. v. Jeevan Kumar, statutory tenancy is heritable. The widow and the children of the tenant would step into the shoes of the tenant as defined in S. 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. On the date when the suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed, the widow was a tenant and, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree for her ejectment. (3) AN attempt was made before us to bring the case within the ambit of Explanation II of clause (I). We are not inclined to accept the submission in the facts of the present case. The trial courts jurisdiction has to be determined with reference to the date of the institution of the suit and once it is held that the widow, defendant 1, was a tenant within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the civil court would have no jurisdiction. (4) THE appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is vacated. (5) IN view of the fact that the benefit of heritability has been available pursuant to a judgment delivered during the pendency of this appeal, parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.