ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. This application has been preferred by the defendant/appellant/petitioner against the order dated 28th June, 2005, passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No. 135 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate Court while held that after the death of 1st appellant, his compounder/2nd appellant is not entitled to proceed with the case, dismissed the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 09 of 1998 in the Court of learned Munsif against Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta and his compounder Narendra Nath Supakar (petitioner herein) for evicting them from Schedule A" premises of the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- and on the ground of personal necessity as also on the ground of subletting the suit premises. The plaintiff/1st respondent claimed to have purchased the scheduled land and building from Ex-owner Sri Bhola Nath Bhagat through registered sale deed dated 26th June, 1997 whereinafter, the vendor of the plaintiff informed the defendants regarding sale of the building and requested them to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff from July, 1997. It has been alleged that the rent was not paid. Further ease of the plaintiff/1st respondent herein is that she required the tenanted premises for her personal use of occupation, as she has a big family and her sons are sitting idle. The plaintiff wanted to settled them in business. 3. The suit after contest was decreed on 31st July. 2004 on both the grounds of default in making payment of rent and personal necessity. 1st defendant Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta was running his clinic in the suit premises and the 2nd defendant (petitioner herein) was his compounder. Both Dr. Praful Chandra Gupta and his compounder Narendra Nath Supakar (petitioner herein) jointly preferred Title Appeal No. 135 of 2005 against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2004 before the learned District Judge, Dhanbad. During pendency of the said appeal, 1st appellant Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta died. After death of the 1st appellant, the plaintiff/ 1st respondent (decree-holder) filed an application on 24th December, 2004, stating therein, that the 1st appellant had neither any widow nor any son, except five daughters who are married. During pendency of the said appeal, 1st appellant Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta died. After death of the 1st appellant, the plaintiff/ 1st respondent (decree-holder) filed an application on 24th December, 2004, stating therein, that the 1st appellant had neither any widow nor any son, except five daughters who are married. The 2nd appellant/petitioner herein, who was the compounder of the 1st appellant, opposed the petition and pleaded that married daughters being the heirs of Dr. (Capt.) Praful Chandra Gupta, are entitled to be substituted in place of deceased 1st appellant. A substitution petition was also filed by the 2nd appellant. The learned appellate Court rejected the petition for substitution and held that the compounder/2nd appellant is not entitled to proceed with the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Gain Devi An and v. Jeevan Kumar and others, . The said case relates to statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises, situated at Delhi. In the said case, a question arose as to whether a tenant even after termination of the tenancy continued to have an estate or interest in the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights both in respect of residential premises and commercial premises are heritable or not. Having noticed the provisions of Section 2(1)(ii)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Supreme Court held that the heirs of the deceased-tenant, in absence of any provision under the Rent Control Act, to the contrary, will step into the position of the deceased-tenant and all the rights and obligations of the deceased-tenant, including the protection afforded to the deceased-tenant under the Act will devolve on the heirs of the deceased-tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that the said judgment in the case of Smt. Gain Devi Anand (supra), is not applicable in the present case. There the definition of tenant under Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act includes son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them. So far as the present case is concerned, defendant/2nd appellant/petitioner and the plaintiff/1st respondent are governed by Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. There the definition of tenant under Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act includes son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them. So far as the present case is concerned, defendant/2nd appellant/petitioner and the plaintiff/1st respondent are governed by Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Section 2(h) of the said Act defines tenant; under Clause 3(iii) of Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Act, in the event of death of the person, continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy, the spouse, son or unmarried daughter, parents, daughter-in-law, being widow of predeceased son can claim to be the tenant, as is evident from the relevant provisions, as quoted hereunder : Section 2(h) of the Act defines tenant as follows :-- (h) "tenant" means any person by whom, or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes-- (i) a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour and (ii) a person who occupies a building as an employee of the landlord of such building either on payment of rent or otherwise. (iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order, of succession and condition specified, respectively, in Explanations i and ii to (a) spouse; (b) son or unmarried daughter, or where there are both of them; (c) parents; (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of predeceased son, as had been ordinarily residing in the premises with such person as a member or members of his family upto the date of his death, but does not include any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, the petition was filed for substitution of the married daughters. As the married daughters do not fall within the definition of tenant under Section 2(h) of the Act, the petition for substitution was rightly rejected by the learned appellant Court. Further, as the premises, in question, was rented to a doctor for running his clinic and after his death, the compounder neither can practice nor can run the clinic, the appeal at the instance of the compounder/2nd appellant (petitioner herein), being not maintainable, was rightly dismissed. Further, as the premises, in question, was rented to a doctor for running his clinic and after his death, the compounder neither can practice nor can run the clinic, the appeal at the instance of the compounder/2nd appellant (petitioner herein), being not maintainable, was rightly dismissed. There being no illegality, interference with the impugned order dated 28th June, 2005, passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No. 135 of 2004, is not called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.