1. Eviction petition filed by a person of unsound mind through a next friend — Appointment of guardian under Order 32, Rule 1 and 15, CPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1143
1999(8) Supreme 408
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
B.N. Kirpal & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Raj Kumar -Appellant
versus
Rameshchand & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 91/99)
Decided on 1-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Guanendra Agarwal, Bharat Sangal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, M.S. Dhillon, M.P. Shorawala, Advocates.
Important Points
Very important Point
In the matter of appointment of Guardian/next friend to a mentally unsound person provisions of the Mental Heath Act, 1987 do not apply to a proceedings for eviction against a mentally unsound person since Section 50 of the Mental Health Act does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in a proceeding for eviction against him; provisions applicable to such a case is Order 32, Rule 1 r/w Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure.
In the matter of appointment of Guardian/next friend to a mentally unsound person provisions of the Mental Heath Act, 1987 do not apply to a proceedings for eviction against a mentally unsound person since Section 50 of the Mental Health Act does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in a proceeding for eviction against him; provisions applicable to such a case is Order 32, Rule 1 r/w Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Subject
Civil Law - Appointment of Guardian
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Mental Health Act, 1987-Sections 50, 52, 53, 54 and 55-Application of provisions to rent control proceedings-Section 50 does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in proceedings for eviction against mentally unsound person-To such a case applicable provision is Order 32 Rule 1 r/w Rule 15 of C.P.C.
Held : Sections 52 to 55 are contained in Chapter VI of the Mental Health Act, 1987. This Chapter contains provisions relating to “Judicial inquisition regarding alleged mentally ill person possessing property, custody of his person and management of his property.” Section 50 provides for an application being made for holding an inquisition with regard to the mental condition of a person which is alleged to be mentally ill and is possessed of property. Such an application can be filed only by the persons or authorities specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 50. It is pursuant to the proceedings so initiated that the other provisions of the Chapter including Sections 52 to 55 would apply. Section 50 does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in a proceeding for eviction against him. (Para 5)
In the instant case what was applicable was Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15. An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed before the Rent Controller and the father was appointed as the guardian and next friend of the appellant. Nothing more was required to be done and the High Court, in our opinion, was in error in coming to the conclusion that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable and the procedure provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 had not been complied with. (Para 6)
(ii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 32, Rule 1 r/w Rule 15-Mental Health Act, 1987-Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55-Appointment of guardian and next friend to mentally retarded person-Eviction petition by father for and on behalf of mentally retarded person-Father appointed as guardian and next friend by Court under Order 32, Rule 1 r/w Rule 15-High Court holding that guardian/next friend has to be appointed in accordance with provisions of mental Health Act-Not tenable-Section 50 of Mental Health Act does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in a proceedings for eviction against mentally unsound person-Rent Controller justified in appointing guardian/next friend under Order 32, Rule 1 r/w Rule 15 of C.P.C.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a guardian for a person of unsound mind must be appointed under the Mental Health Act, 1987, rather than Order 32, CPC, for eviction proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. The Mental Health Act's inquisition provisions apply only after specific applications under Section 50, which does not contemplate challenges raised by tenants in eviction proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Appointment of a guardian under Order 32, Rule 1 and 15, CPC is sufficient for maintainability of eviction proceedings by a person of unsound mind. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — High Court directed to decide the revision on merits. (Para 7 )
6. Does the appointment of a guardian under the Mental Health Act, 1987, supersede the procedure under Order 32 of the CPC in eviction proceedings?
No. The court held that an application for the appointment of a guardian under Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15 of the CPC is sufficient, and the specific procedures of the Mental Health Act, 1987, are not mandatory for maintainability. (Para 6 )
7. When do the provisions regarding judicial inquisition under Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987, apply?
These provisions apply only after proceedings are initiated via an application for inquisition under Section 50, which must be filed by persons or authorities specified in Section 50(1). (Para 5 )
8. Can a tenant challenge the maintainability of an eviction petition on the ground that the landlord's guardian was not appointed under the Mental Health Act?
No, because Section 50 of the Mental Health Act does not contemplate an application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in an eviction proceeding. (Para 5 )
Order
Leave granted.
2. Raj Kumar, appellant No. 1 is a mentally retarded person. An application through next friend was filed on his behalf for eviction of the respondents from the premises which was owned by Raj Kumar. In reply to the Eviction Petition, it was inter alia stated that the appellant was a man of unsound mind and was not capable of doing any business and as no guardian has been appointed by the District Judge, the father could not act as a guardian.
3. An application under Order 32 , Rule 1 read with Rule 1 5 , C.P.C. was filed and the rent controlling authority by its order dated 4.8.93 appointed the father as the appellant’s guardian and next friend. This order was challenged by the respondents by filing a civil revision before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.93 affirmed the order of appointment of the father of appellant as his guardian and next friend.
4. The rent control authority, after trial of the case, dismissed the application for eviction. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 3.7.98 dismissed the revision not on merits but on the ground that the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 applied and the petition which was filed was not maintainable before the rent controlling authority without a guardian/next friend being appointed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid Act. In fact, the High Court did not consider the merits of the case. Hence this appeal by special leave.
5. Sections 52 to 55 are contained in Chapter VI of the Mental Health Act, 1987. This Chapter contains provisions relating to “Judicial inquisition regarding alleged mentally ill person possessing property, custody of his person and management of his property.” Section 50 provides for an application being made for holding an inquisition with regard to the mental condition of a person which is alleged to be mentally ill and is possessed of property. Such an application can be filed only by the persons or authorities specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 50. It is pursuant to the proceedings so initiated that the other provisions of the Chapter including Sections 52 to 55 would apply. Section 50 does not contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a tenant in a proceeding for eviction against him.
6. In the instant case what was applicable was Order 32 , Rule 1 read with Rule 1 5 . An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed before the Rent Controller and the father was appointed as the guardian and next friend of the appellant. Nothing more was required to be done and the High Court, in our opinion, was in error in coming to the conclusion that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable and the procedure provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 had not been complied with.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997 on merits. The High Court should dispose of the said revision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
*************
