ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession filed by the respondent against the appellant in respect of a shop situate at Bhiwani in the State of Haryana. The shop was let out to one Asha Ram for a period of 11 months and after the expiry of the said period he continued in possession as a statutory tenant. Asha Ram died on 7-4-1979. The suit was filed on 2-6-1981 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Bhiwani. The case of the respondent in the plaint was that Asha Ram died issueless and that he had not married and that the appellant was in occupation of the premises as a servant of Asha Ram and that his possession was not authorised. The appellant, however, claimed that he was the son of Asha Ram and he had inherited the tenancy rights of Asha Ram. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 24-1-1983 found that the appellant is the son of Asha Ram but it decreed the suit on the view that statutory tenancy of Asha Ram in respect of non-residential premises was not heritable and the appellant could not seek the protection of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Haryana Act"). The said judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Bhiwani by his judgment dated 10-9-1984. The District Judge has recorded that the finding of the trial court, that the appellant was the son of Asha Ram and not his servant, was not assailed before him by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments. The District Judge agreed with the view of the trial court that the statutory tenancy rights of Asha Ram in shop were not heritable. The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by order dated 19-10-1984. Hence, this appeal. 4. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the statutory tenancy of Asha Ram in respect of the shop was heritable and whether the appellant can avail the protection of the provisions of the Haryana Act. Hence, this appeal. 4. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the statutory tenancy of Asha Ram in respect of the shop was heritable and whether the appellant can avail the protection of the provisions of the Haryana Act. Insofar as the heritability of statutory tenancy is concerned, the law is settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar{ (1985) 2 SCC 683 } wherein it has been laid down that the termination of the contractual tenancy does not bring about any change in the status and legal position of the tenant unless there are contrary provisions in the Act and the tenant notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises which is heritable in the absence of any provision to the contrary. 5. In the Haryana Act, the expression tenant is defined in Section 2(h) as under: "2. (h) tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and in the event of such persons death, such of his heirs as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out, or leased by a municipal, town or notified area committee;" Son has been mentioned amongst the heirs who are entitled to succeed to the tenancy in the Schedule. 6. There is no provision in the Haryana Act which excludes the heritability of the interest of the tenant in non-residential premises. 6. There is no provision in the Haryana Act which excludes the heritability of the interest of the tenant in non-residential premises. The view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Daljit Singh v. Gurmukh Dass{(1981) 2 Ren CR 246} on which reliance has been placed by the District Judge, that under the Haryana Act only the statutory tenancy in respect of residential premises is heritable and the statutory tenancy in respect of non-residential premises is not heritable, is, therefore, no longer good law in view of the decision of this Court in Gian Devi Anand case{ (1985) 2 SCC 683 }. On that view of the matter the appellant, being the son of Asha Ram, must be treated to have inherited the rights of Asha Ram as a statutory tenant in the shop and he could be evicted from the said premises only in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Act. The suit which was filed by the respondent does not indicate that it was based on any of the grounds for eviction mentioned in the Haryana Act. The decree for possession passed in the said suit cannot, therefore, be upheld. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree for possession passed by the courts below is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 706