M.R Sharma, J.:— The shop in dispute was let out to one Basanta in the year 1946 initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. After the expiry of the origional period of 11 months, Sh. Basanta naturally acquired the status of statutory tenant. After some time the appellant and Basanta by mutal consent fixed the rent of this shop at Rs. 25/- per month. Shri Basanta died in the year 1966. The appellant brought a suit for ejectment against the legal heirs of Basanta on the ground that the latter being a statutory tenant, the tenancy was not heritable by his heirs, according to the law in force in the State of Haryana. The learned lower appellate court held that because of the change of rent agreed to by the appellant and Basanta, a new tenancy from month to month had come into existence and such a tenancy was heritable.
2. In this appeal it has been argued that more change of rent did not change the state of Basanta as a statutory tenant. When questioned, the learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to cite any authority in support of his argument.
3. A tenancy is created on the basis of a contract infer parties. Such a contract is subject to legal incidents like novation. When one of the terms of the earlier contract is changed, a new contract comes into being. I, therefore, affirm the view taken by the learned lower appellate court that because of the change of monthly rent a new tenancy came into being. Admittedly, this tenancy was from month to month. In Smt. Darshan Devi v. Shrimati Kaushalya Devi . 1975 R.C.J S.N 18. and Shiv Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosev Lal,2 a firm view has been taken that such a tenancy can be inherited by the heirs of the dece???ed.
4. For reasons afore mentioned, I see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same.
H.L.S
Appeal dismissed.