Back
High Court Of Delhi
KEDAR NATH - Appellant
Versus
RAM NATH ETC - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 54 of 1968
Decided On : 10/09/1973
RENT CONTROL ACT - EVICTION - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - JURISDICTION - SURVIVAL OF RIGHT TO SUE - CONTINGENT LIABILITY - ORDER FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14(1).
Fact of the Case:
Two eviction applications were filed by the landlord against his tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), after terminating their contractual tenancies. The tenants died during the pendency of the proceedings, and their legal representatives were brought on record. The Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the petitions on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant was no longer alleged to subsist between the parties, and the petitions were not maintainable under the Act. The landlord appealed to the High Court, which referred the appeals to a larger Bench in view of the divergence of views on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to such applications. The larger Bench held that the right to sue survived in favor of the landlord against the legal representatives of the deceased tenants, and the jurisdiction of the Controller to entertain, proceed with, and finally dispose of the proceedings was not affected by the death of the tenant during its pendency.
Finding of the Court:
1. The legal representatives of the deceased tenants are accountable to the landlord for the possession of the premises, which had to be made over to the landlord. They are, therefore, in every sense of the expression legal representatives of the deceased. 2. The right to sue on the basis of the application under Section 14 of the Act, which was pending before the Controller at the time of the tenant's death, survives in favor of the landlord, against the legal representatives of the deceased. 3. The Controller has the power to make an order for recovery of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, if any of the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) to (l) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act are shown to exist.
Issues: 1. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased tenants are accountable to the landlord for the possession of the premises? 2. Whether the right to sue on the basis of the application under Section 14 of the Act survives in favor of the landlord, against the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether the Controller has the power to make an order for recovery of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The legal representatives of the deceased tenants are accountable to the landlord for the possession of the premises, which had to be made over to the landlord, as they represent the estate of the deceased tenants and are, therefore, legal representatives of the deceased. 2. The right to sue on the basis of the application under Section 14 of the Act, which was pending before the Controller at the time of the tenant's death, survives in favor of the landlord, against the legal representatives of the deceased, as the right to sue survives to or against the legal representative of a person in case of death, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract. 3. The Controller has the power to make an order for recovery of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, if any of the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) to (l) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act are shown to exist, as the power of the Controller to make an order for recovery of the premises is contained in the proviso, which is wide in scope and does not limit the Controller's power to making an order against a tenant only.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were set aside. The proceedings under Section 14 of the Act were directed to be continued against the legal representatives of the deceased tenants.
( 1 ) THE main question that has arisen in these 2 S. A. O. No. 6 and 54 of 1968 is : Can the proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called the Act initiated for the eviction of a tenant, after terminating his contractual tenancy, be continued after his death and eviction order be passed against his legal representatives ?
( 2 ) SHRI Kedar Nath, the predecessor in interest of the present appellants in both appeals filed 2 separate eviction applications, U/s 14 of the Act, against his tenants, who held two separate premises on lease under him. The contractual tenancies in both cases, had been terminated earlier, by service of notices to quit. In one proceeding, which has given rise to SAO 6 of 1968, the tenant was Naubat Ram, and the grounds on which eviction was sought were non-payment of an ears of rent, after service of notice of demand referred to in clause (a) of the proviso to S. 14 (1) of the Act, sub-letting without landlord s consent (Cl. (b) of the said proviso) and misuser of the premises (Cl. (c) of the proviso ). In the other which has given rise to SAO 54 of 1968, the tenants were Prabhu and Maman Lal, and the grounds for eviction besides the aforementioned 3 grounds were non-residence of the tenant in the premises (cl. (d) of the proviso) and substantial damage to the premises (Cl. J) of the proviso ). The tenants in both the premises died while proceedings were pending before the Additional Rent Controller. Their legal representatives who did not dispute their character as such, were brought on record and amended petitions were filed. In SAO 54 of 1968, besides the legal representatives of the deceased, their sub-tenants were also impleaded as respondents no. 5 to 7.
( 3 ) IN the amended petitions it was further contended that the legal representatives of the deceased tenants had not inharited the tenancy rights, because the tenancies were statutory and personal to the tenants in nature and the legal representatives had therefore no right to remain in possession. The Additional Controller was of the view that as the relationship of landlord and tenant was no longer alleged to subsist between the parties, the petitions were not maintainable under the 1958 Act. He, therefore, dismissed both the petitions. The Rent Control Tribunal concurred with this view, further holding that the right to sue did not survive and dismissed the appeals. Against the orders of the Tribunal these 2 appeals were filed in this Court by Sh. Kidar Nath, the landlord.
( 4 ) WHILE the appeals were pending Kidar Nath died on 10. 4. 71. On 20. 8. 71, two applications were filed by his legal representatives to have the abatement set aside and to be impleaded in his place and for condonation of delay in filing the applications. S. N. Shanker. J. before whom these applications came up referred both the appeals to larger Bench, as he found divergence of views of this court on the question of applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to such applications. The matter came before a Bench consisting of S. N. Andley C. J. and T. P. S. Chawla, J. , who allowed the applications and brought the legal representatives, hereinafter collectively referred to as the landlord, on record. On merits they noticed that similar questions had been referred for decision to a larger Bench in another appeal. They, therefore, directed these 2 appeals to be placed before the same Bench which was to hear the other appeal. The matters came up before a Division Bench who noticed that in one of the appeals, the sub-tenants were parties to the eviction petition, alongwith the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants landlord on South Asia Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Sarup Singh and Ors. AIR. 1966. S. C. 346. It was contended that some of the observations in the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. G. Malhotra Vs. Vijay Kumar 1973. Rajdhani Law Reporter. 366, were irreconcilable with the majority
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
