PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) CM No. 12787/2005 1. The appeal was dismissed in default on 13.3.2003. Vide CM 12785/2005 restoration of the appeal has been prayed for. Vide CM No. 12787/2005 delay in filing CM No.12785/2005 is prayed for. 2. The second appeal was filed in the year 1982. This court could not decide the same for 21 years. That by itself is a ground to condone the delay for the reason having made to stand in the queue for 21 years it would be a travesty of justice if this court were to persist with the order dated 13.3.2003. 21 years wait is enough to put any person into slumber. 3. Delay in filing CM No. 12785/2005 is accordingly condoned. 4. The application is allowed. CM No.12785/2005 1. For the reasons noted hereinabove condoning delay in filing CM No.12785/2005 the application needs to be allowed and order dated 13.3.2003 needs to be recalled. 2. The application is allowed. Order dated 13.3.2003 is recalled. 3. Appeal is restored to its original number. CM No.15465/2006 1. Vide CM No.15464/2006 LRs of deceased respondent No.2 are sought to be brought on record. There is a delay in filing the said application. Respondent No.2 died on 19.1.2006. Explaining delay in moving the application it is stated that appellants learnt about the death and names of legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 very late. It is stated that knowledge was gained only in the month of March 2006. 2. For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. 3. Delay in filing CM No.15464/2006 is condoned. CM No.15464/2006 The application is allowed. Legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 names whereof has been disclosed in para 3are brought on record. Amendedmemoofpartiesfiledistaken on record. RSA No.155/1982 1. With consent of parties the appeal is heard for disposal. 2. On 2.6.1982 apart from two other questions one question of law framed was:-“Whether statutory tenancy of commercial premises is inheritable”“ 3. The issue is no longer res integra being covered by a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1985 (2) SCC 683 Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumari as explained by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 2003 SC 1475 Swaran Kumar Vs. Madan Kumar Aggarwal. 4. The issue is no longer res integra being covered by a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1985 (2) SCC 683 Gyan Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumari as explained by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 2003 SC 1475 Swaran Kumar Vs. Madan Kumar Aggarwal. 4. When the impugned judgments and decrees were pronounced law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision reported as Ganpath Laddha Vs. Shashi Kant Vishnu AIR 1976 SC 955 was in vogue. View taken was that statutory tenancies are not inheritable. In Gyan Devis case (supra) aforesaid view was overruled. It was held that statutory tenancies are inheritable. 5. The amendment to the Delhi Rent Control Act was also noted. Since the amendment related to the definition of tenant pertaining to residential properties it was explained that in view of the legislative amendment as far as residential properties were concerned, statutory tenancies would be inherited limited as per the statute, but for commercial properties, contractual as well as statutory tenancies would be inherited as per the general law. 6. In Swaran Kumars case it was held that the decision in Gyan Devis case was not to be applied prospectively. It had to be applied retrospectively. 7. Instant case is admittedly that of a commercial tenancy. It relates to a shop at a property in Hauz Qazi. 8. Holding that Sarabjit Singh was a statutory tenant, it has held that on his death the tenancy came to an end. 9. Thus, the appeal has to be allowed. 10. Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Judge as affirmed by the first Appellate Judge are set aside. 11. Suit for ejectment filed by the respondents is dismissed. 12. No costs.