# 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 801 ~=} THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR v. M/S. SUPER MAX INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. & ORS - **Citation:** [2009] 13 S.C.R. 801 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-08-27 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5835 of 2009 - **Bench:** B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Aftab Alam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-addl-s-c-r-801-the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-v-m-s-super-max-international-25154 - **Pages:** 36 ## Headnote ......_ Rent Control - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - ss.13(3)(a) and 13(1)(g) - Suit for ejectment of appellant-tenant - Decreed - Revision petition c - High Court passed interim order staying execution of "decree subject, however, to the condition that appellant would deposit monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent ..... from the date of decree - Condition on which stay granted - Challenged - Held: In an appeal/revision preferred by tenant D _. .Ji( against order/decree of eviction passed under the Rent Act, it is open to appellate/revisional Court to stay execution of the order/decree on terms, including a .direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than contractual rent - However, in fixing the amount subject to payment of which execution of order/ E decree is stayed, Courts to exercise restraint and not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount - On facts, High Court fixed the amount with reference to Stamp Duty Ready - >-- Reckoner and hence, its reasonableness cannot be doubted - However,· in case eviction decree set aside, status quo ante F would be restored and ·appellant would be entitled to get back all amounts that he \:\'BS made to pay in excess of the contractual rent - Interim order - Legality of. Appellant was in occupation of a building floor on a G monthly rent of about Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court and ·i Appellate Court decreed suit for ejectment of appellant on grounds of (i) default in payment of taxes and water charges and (ii) reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords (Respondents 1 to 3) for their own use and 801 H 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A occupation, i.e under section 13(3)(a) and 13(1)g) of the +-- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellant filed revision petition before High Court challenging the order of ejectment. The High Court stayed execution of decree subject, however, to the B condition that appellant would deposit an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- as monthly rent commencing from date of decree passed by Trial Court. Aggrieved by the condition, the appellant filed the present appeal. c The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against a order or decree of eviction -passed under the Rent Act, it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly ~ D rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. .... )( ' '\ Dismissing the appeal, the Court ""'" HELD: 1.1. There is a need for a more balanced and E objective approach to the relationship between the . landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate ~- F need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. [Para 43] [832-G-H; 833-A-B] , 1.2. The interim order of the High Court asking the appellant to deposit Rs.5,40,000/- from the date of the decree as condition for stay of the execution of the decree G of ejectment has to be seen as one single package. The appellant may or may not accept the order as a whole. )--. But it is not open to it to accept the order in so far as it stays the execution of the decree and to question the condition attached to it. In an appeal or revision, stay of H STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 803 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ,..., )-- execution of the decree(s) passed by the court(s) below A cannot be Clsked for as of right. While admitting the appeal or revision, it is perfectly open to the ~ourt, to decline to grant any stay or to grant stay subject to some reasonable condition. In case stay is not granted or in case the order of stay remains inoperative for failure to B satisfy the condition subject to which it is granted, the ~ tenant-in-rev ## Text _Characters 0–39,940 of 70,531. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39940 for what follows._ [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 801 ~=} THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. A v. M/S. SUPER MAX INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5835 of 2009) AUGUST 27, 2009 B [B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] ......_ Rent Control - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - ss.13(3)(a) and 13(1)(g) - Suit for ejectment of appellant-tenant - Decreed - Revision petition c - High Court passed interim order staying execution of "decree subject, however, to the condition that appellant would deposit monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent ..... from the date of decree - Condition on which stay granted - Challenged - Held: In an appeal/revision preferred by tenant D _. .Ji( against order/decree of eviction passed under the Rent Act, it is open to appellate/revisional Court to stay execution of the order/decree on terms, including a .direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than contractual rent - However, in fixing the amount subject to payment of which execution of order/ E decree is stayed, Courts to exercise restraint and not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount - On facts, High Court fixed the amount with reference to Stamp Duty Ready - >-- Reckoner and hence, its reasonableness cannot be doubted - However,· in case eviction decree set aside, status quo ante F would be restored and ·appellant would be entitled to get back all amounts that he \:\'BS made to pay in excess of the contractual rent - Interim order - Legality of. Appellant was in occupation of a building floor on a G monthly rent of about Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court and ·i Appellate Court decreed suit for ejectment of appellant on grounds of (i) default in payment of taxes and water charges and (ii) reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords (Respondents 1 to 3) for their own use and 801 H 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A occupation, i.e under section 13(3)(a) and 13(1)g) of the +-- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellant filed revision petition before High Court challenging the order of ejectment. The High Court stayed execution of decree subject, however, to the B condition that appellant would deposit an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- as monthly rent commencing from date of decree passed by Trial Court. Aggrieved by the condition, the appellant filed the present appeal. c The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against a order or decree of eviction -passed under the Rent Act, it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly ~ D rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. .... )( ' '\ Dismissing the appeal, the Court ""'" HELD: 1.1. There is a need for a more balanced and E objective approach to the relationship between the . landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate ~- F need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. [Para 43] [832-G-H; 833-A-B] , 1.2. The interim order of the High Court asking the appellant to deposit Rs.5,40,000/- from the date of the decree as condition for stay of the execution of the decree G of ejectment has to be seen as one single package. The appellant may or may not accept the order as a whole. )--. But it is not open to it to accept the order in so far as it stays the execution of the decree and to question the condition attached to it. In an appeal or revision, stay of H STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 803 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ,..., )-- execution of the decree(s) passed by the court(s) below A cannot be Clsked for as of right. While admitting the appeal or revision, it is perfectly open to the ~ourt, to decline to grant any stay or to grant stay subject to some reasonable condition. In case stay is not granted or in case the order of stay remains inoperative for failure to B satisfy the condition subject to which it is granted, the ~ tenant-in-revision will not have the protection of any of the provisions under the Rent Act and in all likelihood would be evicted before the revision is finally decided. In the event the revision is allowed later on, the tenant's c remedy would be only by way of restitution. [Para 44] (833-C-F] -4 1.3. In an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against a order or decree of an eviction passed under the D ~ _Jr Rent Act, it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. In fixing the amount subject to payment of which the execution of the order/ decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not E fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. In the case in hand, the High Court fixed the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/ - t- - per month with reference to the Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner and hence, its reasonableness cannot be doubted. [Paras 46 and 47] (835-8-E] F 1.4. As regards the other question as to what would be the position if the tenant's appeal/revision is allowed and the eviction decree is set aside, in that event, naturally, the status quo ante would be restored and the G . ._.. tenant would be entitled to get back all the amounts that he was made to pay in excess of the contractual rent. That being the position, the amount fixed by the court over and above the contractual monthly rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A the pendency of the appeal/revision. The deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, should only be paid afte~ the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. In case for some reason the Court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it B should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complications. [Para 48] c (835-E-H; .. 836-A] , Damadilal & Ors. vs. Parashram & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 855; Gian Devi Anand VS. Jeevan Kumar (1985) 2 sec 683; Mani Subrat Jain vs. Raja Ram Vohra, (1980) 1 SCC 1; H. Shiva Rao vs. Cecilia Pereira (1987) 1 SCC 258 and Di/ip D vs. Mohd. Azizu/ Haq & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 6.07, distinguished. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Fe ). tenant dies, whether the death as occurred before or after the commencement of the said Act, any member of the tenant's family using the premises for the purposes of education of carrying on business, trade or storage in the premises, with the E tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in default of agreement by the court. - t Explanation- The provisions of this clause for transmission F of tenancy, shall not be restricted to the death of the original tenant, but shall apply, and shall be deemed always to have applied, even on the death of any subsequent tenant, who becomes tenant under these provisions on the G death of the last preceding tenant." ~-1 (emphasis added) 12. He then referred to the definitiqn of "standard rent" as contained in section 5(10) of the Act. The provision is as under: H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A "5(10). "standard rent" in relation to any premises means,-. (a) where the standard rent is fixed by the Court and the Controller respectiveb; under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, or the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging B House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, such standard rent; or _/' (b) w~en the standard rent is not so fixed,- subject to the provisions of section 11, c (i) the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of September 1940, or (ii) where they were not let on the first day of September 1940, the rent at which they were last let before that day, or D (iii) where they were first let after the first day of September 1940, the rent at which they were first let, or (iii-a) notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (iii), E the rent of the premises referred to in sub-section (1-A) of section 4 shall, on expiry of the period of five years mentioned in that sub-section, not exceed the amount equivalent to the amount of net return of fifteen percent, on the investment in the land and building and all the F outgoings in respect of such premises; or (iv) on any of the cases specified in section 11, the rent fixed by the Court." 13. Mr. Lalit submitted that by virtue of section 5(10)(b) the standard rent under the Bombay Rent Act was attached to the G premises. It was, therefore, constant and not subject to any H · revision on change in tenancy. In other words even if the appellant ceased to be a tenant and is thrown out, the respondents can inpuct another tenant only on the same "standard rent", that is, Rs.5236.58/- besides water charges at -~. -1 .... ( ~ I i - -,- ;;( ~- ·t- '- I STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 813 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.) ,...._ ?'"- the rate of Rs.515.35/- per month. He further submitted that A ,, except in circumstances as provided under sections 10 (increase in rent on account of payment of rates, etc); 10A (increase in rent in respect of premises that were let out on or before September 1, 1940), 1 OB (saving increase in rent under the previous provisions from the bar of section 7), and 11 B (increase in rent resulting from 'standard rent' fixed by the court in certain cases) any increment of rent was expressly barred - ~ under section 7 of the Act. 14. Mr. Lalit submitted that in view of section 5(11) of the c Act the appellant continued to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act notwithstanding the decrees of ejectment passed by the Small Causes Court. It, therefore, followed that the appellant enjoyed all the protections provided under the Act and in light .._, of the provisions referred to above any direction to pay, as D • > • monthly rent, any amount in excess of the standard rent was contrary to law and unsustainable. 15. Before proceeding to examine Mr. Lalit's submissions we may observe that earlier a three-Judge Bench of this Court ' in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra E & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 1, found and held that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act relating to the determination and fixation of 'standard rent' can no longer be considered to be .; -t reasonable. The only reason why, despite the finding, the Court did not strike down those provisions was that the Bombay Rent F , Act was to come to an end on March 31, 1998 and the Court was informed that the State was in the process of enacting a new Rent Control Act that would be just and fair and would follow the National Model Law that was circulated by the Central Government in 1992. After the decision of the Court in Malpe G Vishwanath ~charya the Bombay Rent Act was indeed . -i replaced by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 that came into force with effect from March 31, 2000. But Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, strongly contended that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act completely H 814 $UPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A belied the hopes expressed by the Court under which it had i.,.,. refrained from striking down the offending provisions in the Bombay Rent Act. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act merely·brought about some cosmetic changes but retained the substance of the earlier Bombay Rent Act. B Referring to the definition of "standard rent" in section 7(14) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that it merely shifted the date from September 1, 1940 to October 1, 1987 for pegging the standard rent which continued to be -i ~ attached to the premises and was not amenable to any revision c on change of tenancy. .16. The issue of reasonableness of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or the Bombay Rent Act do not arise in this case and, therefore, we refrain from making any observations in that regard but we do feel that the .... D reasonableness or otherwise of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act may have to be seriously .it ~ examined by this Court in an appropriate case. 17. Coming back to the case in hand, Mr. Lalit argued that E in spite of the decrees of eviction passed by competent courts, the appellant continued to be a "tenant" within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act until, in execution of the decree it was physically evicted from the suit premises. The tenancy did not come to end on the passing of the decree but would continue + .... F as long as the appellant was in actual physical possession of the suit premises; a priori it enjoyed all the protection under the Bombay Rent Act and specially those laying down the bar against any increase in rent. In support of the contention he relied upon two sets of decisions, one on the issue of heritability G of tenancy under the Rent Acts and the other on the question whether a tenant could be evicted on the basis of a decree made under the general law in case after the decree was )-- . passed the rented premises came to be covered by the Rent Act. The first set comprises three decisions of this Court in (i) H Damadilal & Ors. vs. Parashram & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 855, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 815 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.] k ).- (ii) Ganpat Ladha vs. Shashi Kant Vishnu Shinde, (1978) 2 A - SCC 573 and (iii) Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar(1985) ·~ 2 SCC 683. The second set also has three decisions. Those are (i) Mani Subrat Jain vs. Raja Ram Vohra, (1980) 1 SCC 1, (ii) H. Shiva Rao vs. Cecilia Pereira (1987) 1 SCC·258 and (iii) Di/ip vs. Mohd. Azizul Haq & Anr., ·(2000) 3 SCC 607. B 18. Dealing with the three decisions in the first set, Mr. Lalit "'- ~ submitted that Damadilal fully supported his contention. The decision in Ganpat Ladha took a contrary view but later in Gian Devi Anand a Constitution Bench overruled Ganpat Ladha and c approved Damadilal thus, reinforcing the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 19. The case of Damadilal arose under the Madhya ..... Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The suit premise was a house in a bazar that was let out to the two defendants D > )..- (the tenants) for business purposes. The question that arose in the case was whether on the death of the two tenants during - the pendency of their second appeal before the High Court, their respective heirs and legal representatives had the right to get themselves substituted in place of the original appellantsE tenants and pursue the reliefs sought for by them. The High Court permitted substitution and eventually allowed the second appeal, setting aside the eviction decrees passed by the courts ,, -+ below. The High Court judgment was challenged before this Court in appeal. One of the grounds on which the High Court F judgment was assailed by the appellants-landlords was that after their contractual tenancy was determined the two original tenants were reduced to the status of statutory tenants having no heritable interest in the demised premises and on their death the right to prosecute their appeal did not survive for their G heirs and legal representatives. In support of the contention ·~ reliance was placed on two earlier decisions of the Court in Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd. vs. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi (1964) 4 SCR 892 (arising under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947) and Jagdish Chander H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Chatterjee vs. Sri Kishan (1973} 1 SCR 850 [arising under the ~ ... Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950]. ... A three-Judge Bench, of this Court rejected the contention I' Jf'• raised on behalf of the appellants. The decision in Damadilal ~ pointed out that the term 'statutory tenancy' was borrowed from L B the English Rent Acts and along with the expression certain legal notions, peculiar to the English Common Law, had also found their way in some Indian decisions though those concepts had no basis in the Rent Acts of this country. The Court 1-~ observed that the courts in England had held that a statutory c tenant had no estate or property in the occupied premises since he retained possession by virtue of the Rent Act(s) and not as being entitled to tenancy. It was said that he had only a personal right to remain in occupation, the statutory right of "irremovability and nothing more". The position in this country, however, was D quite different. In paragraph 11 of the decision it was observed '-I as follows: ~ ~ "We find it difficult to appreciate how in this country we can proceed on the basis that a tenant whose contractual .. tenancy has determined but who is protected against E eviction by the statute, has no right of property but only a personal right to remain in occupation, without ascertaining what his rights are under the statute. The concept of a statutory tenant having no estate or property in the .... premises which he occupies is derived from the provisions ~ .... F of the English Rent Acts. But it is not clear how it can be assumed that the position is the same in this country ' without any reference to the provisions of the relevant statute. Tenancy has its origin in contract. There is no dispute that a contractual tenant has an estate or property in the subject- matter of the tenancy, and heritability is an ~ G ' incident of the tenancy. It cannot be assumed, however, that with the determination of the tenancy the estate must ~-· necessarily disappear and the statute can only preserve his status of irremovability and not the estate he had in the H premises in his occupation. It is not possible to claim that STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 817 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.] .,.__ ~ the 'sanctity' of contract cannot be touched by legislation. A It is therefore necessary to examine the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to find out whether the respondents' predecessors-in-interest retained a heritable interest in the disputed premises even after the termination of their tenancy" B 20. The decision then went on to examine section 2(i) of .. ~ the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act that defined 'tenant' and section 14 that provided for restrictions on subletting and held that those provisions supported the view c taken by the Court that the statutory tenant retained as much interest in the demised premises as a contractual tenant. 21. The case of Ganpat Ladha arose under the Bombay .._, Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the premises from which the tenant was sought to be evicted D ') ).>- was a shop let out to him for business purpose. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit on the findings that the tenant had failed to make payment of the arrears of rent even after a valid notice of demand was given to him by the landlord and further that he was not entitled to the protection of section E 12(3)(b) of the Act. The tenant challenged the decrees passed by the courts below before the High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. During the pendency of _..., the writ petition before the High Court the tenant died and her son was impleaded in her place to pursue the reliefs prayed F for in the writ petition. The High Court eventually allowed the writ petition on the ground that despite the default in payment of arrears of rent, the trial court could exercise its discretion in favour of the tenant and decline to pass a decree of eviction. The matter finally came to this Court in appeal preferred by G landlord. A three-Judge Bench of the Court allowed the appeal ,. __.. inter alia holding that after the death of the original tenant her son could not claim to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The decision in Ganpat Ladha is based entirely on interpretation of the definition of 'tenant' under the Bombay Rent H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Act. The Court noticed section 5(11) defining tenant and ~ -"' reproduced the section insofar as it was relevant to the case as follows: "5. (11) 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose B account rent is payable for any premises and includes- (a) ..... (b) ..... -+ . c (c) any member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court" 22. The Court held that section 5(11)(c) restricted the heritability of tenancy only to a member of the tenant's family .,.._ D who might be residing with him at the time of his death. This in turn implied that heritability of tenancy was confined only to ~ residential premises and the benefit could not be extended to business premises. The Court held as follows: E "This principle underlying the enactment of Section 5(11)(c) also goes to indicate that it is in respect of residential premises that the protection of that section is intended to be given. We can appreciate a provision being made in respect of business .,...._ F premises that on the death of a tenant in respect of such premises, any member of the tenant's ' family carrying on business with the tenant in such premises at the time of his death shall be a tenant and the protection of the Rent Act shall be available G to him. But we fail to see,what purpose the legislature could have had in view in according protection in respect of business premises to a )- -, member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death. The basic postulate of H protection under the Rent Act is that the person who is sought to be protected must be in possession of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 819 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.] ...._·~ th~ premises and his possession is protected by A the legislation. But in case of business premises, a member of the family of tenants residing with him at the time of his death may not be in possession of the business premises" 23. In Ganpat Ladha this Court approved the decision of B the Gujarat High Court in Parubai Manila/ Brahmin vs. .. ~ Baldevdas Zaverbhai Tapodhan (1964) 5 Guj LR 563 and in support of the view taken by it also cited the amendment introduced by the Gujarat Legislature in section 5(11 )(c) of the c Bombay Rent Act. It needs to be stated here that in Ganpat Ladha the earlier decision in Damadi/al was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Court did not go into the question whether a tenant on his death left behind any heritable estate ""' or interest in the tenanted premises. D / ).:- 24. Gian Devi is a decision by a Constitution Bench of five Judges. The case arose under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 • and the tenanted premises was once again a shop. The question that the Court framed for its consideration was as under: E "To state it more precisely, the question is whether the heirs of a deceased tenant whose contractual tenancy in _.....,.. respect of commercial premises has been determined, are entitled to the same protection against eviction F afforded by the Act of the tenant" 25. In this case, the Constitution Bench considered both the earlier decisions in Damadilal and in Ganpat Ladha. It also considered the earlier seven-Judge Bench decision in V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal (1980) 1 SCR 334 G ~--1 besides several other decision of the Court. In Gian Devi, as in Damadila/, the Court observed that the expression statutory tenant was used in English Rent Acts and the concept that a statutory tenant had no estate or interest in the demised premises was peculiar to the English Law. It had no basis in H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A the provisions of the Rent Acts of the different States of this -f -" country. Referring to the earlier decision in Damadilal in paragraph 25 of the judgment the Court observed as follows: "This Court has very aptly observed in Damadilal case that B it cannot be assumed that with the determination of the tenancy, the estate must necessarily disappear and the statute can only preserve the status of irremovability and not the estate he has in the premises in his occupation" -1 ,. In the same paragraph, the decision reproduced Section 2(1) c of the Delhi Rent Control Act that defined tenant both as it stood prior to and after its amendment by Act 18 of 1976 and observed as follows: "It is, therefore, clear from the definition of tenant, whether D in the original Act or in the amended Act, that the tenant ~· within the meaning of the definition of the term in the Act _,.. includes any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. It will be seen that the definition of tenant in Madhya . Pradesh Accommodation Control .. ~ E Act, 1961 on which the decision in Damadilal case mainly turns, is similar to the definition of tenant as given in the Delhi Act in the sense that the tenant under both the Acts includes for the purpose of Rent Act any person continuing in possession after the tennination of tenancy." ..,.....~ .. F (emphasis. added) . In this regard in paragraph 31 of the decision, it observed as follows: G "The very premise, on the basis of which the argument is advanced, is, in our opinion, unsound. The termination of th contractual tenancy in view of the definition of t nant in the Act does not bring about any change in the st ~- tus and legal position of the tenant, unless there a e contrary provisions in the Act; and, the tenant H notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does enjoy an STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. SUPER MAX 821 INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.) ,._ ~- estate or interest in the tenanted premises. This interest A or estate which the tenant under the Act despite termination of the contractual tenancy continues to enjoy creates a heritable interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary. We have earlier noticed the decision of this Court in Damadilal case. This view has been taken by this B Court in Damadila/ case and in our opinion this decision represents the correct position in law. The observations of . ~ this Court in the decision of the seven-Judge Bench in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs.