Back
High Court Of Delhi
KERAR NATH - Appellant
Versus
MOHANI DEVI ETC - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 6 of 1968
Decided On : 10/09/1973
LANDLORD TENANT - EVICTION - DEATH OF TENANT - WHETHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, INITIATED FOR EVICTION OF TENANT, AFTER TERMINATING HIS CONTRACTUAL TENANCY, CAN BE CONTINUED AFTER HIS DEATH; AND EVICTION ORDER PASSED AGAINST HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - HELD, YES
Fact of the Case:
Two separate eviction applications were filed by the landlord 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, the tenant died while proceedings were pending before the Additional Controller. His legal representatives, who did not dispute their character as such, were brought on record and amended petitions were filed. In the other proceeding, besides four legal representatives of the deceased, three sub-tenants were also impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 to 7. 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 his views, further holding that the right to sue did not survive and dismissed the appeals. It was against the orders of the Tribunal that these two second appeals were filed in this court by the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The right to sue on the basis of the application under section 14 of the 1958 Act, which was pending before the Controller at the time of the tenant's death, survives in favour of the landlord, against the legal representatives of the deceased. The jurisdiction of the Controller to deal with the said applications after the death of the tenants remained unaffected. The proceedings under section 14 (1) of the 1958 Act, therefore, have to be continued against the said legal representatives.
Issues: 1. Whether proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, initiated for the eviction of a tenant, after terminating his contractual tenancy, can be continued after his death; and eviction order passed against his legal representatives? 2. Whether the right to sue on the basis of the application under section 14 of the 1958 Act, which was pending before the Controller at the time of the tenant's death, survives in favour of the landlord, against the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the Controller to deal with the said applications after the death of the tenants remained unaffected?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to sue, after all, is nothing but the right to seek relief. A petitioner may claim by way of relief recovery of money or property from the respondent. On the latter's death, the petitioner has the right to follow the subject matter of the litigation in the hands of the legal representatives. 2. The applications for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute, out of which the present appeals have arisen, were not actions for damages ex delicto. They did not fall within the enumerated classes, nor were they such that the relief claimed was personal to the deceased tenants and could not be enjoyed after their death or granting it would be nugatory. 3. Although in section 14 (1) the language employed speaks of a ban against an order or decree for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord against a tenant, yet the power of the Controller to make an order for recovery of the premises is contained in the proviso which is wide in scope. It provides, in unequivocal terms that "the Controller may, on an application made to him, in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of the premises on one or more of the specified grounds."
Final Decision: The second appeals succeed. The order of the Tribunal affirming those of the Additional Controller, as well as the order of the Additional Controller dismissing the applications for eviction are set aside. The cases are remanded to the Additional Controller for proceeding with the trial of the applications for eviction in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
( 1 ) TH main question that has arisen in th se two Second Appeals from Orders Nos. 6 and 54 of 1968 is: Can the proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called the 1958 Act , initiated for the viction of a tenant, after terminating his contractual tenancy, be continued after his death; and viction order passed against his l gal repr sentatives?
( 2 ) SHRI Kedar Nath, the predecessor-in-interest of the pr sent appellants in both appeals, filed two separate viction applications, under section 14 of the 1958 Act, against his tenants, who held two separate promises 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 viction was sought were non-payment of arrears of rent, after service of notice of demand referred to in clause (a) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the 1958 Act, subletting without landiord s consent [clause (b) of the said proviso] and misuser of the premises [clause (c) of the proviso]. In the other which hag given rise to SAO 54 of 1968, the tenants were Prabhu Dayal and Mamman Lai, and th grounds for eviction besides the aforesaid three grounds, were non-residence of the tenant in the premises [clause (d) of the proviso] and substantial damage to the premises [clause (j) of the proviso]. The tenants in both the premises died while proceedings were pending before the Additional Controller. Their legal representatives, who did not dispute their character as such, were brought on record and amended petitions were filed. In proceeding against Prabhu Dayal and Mamman Lai, (SAO 54 of 1968), besides four legal representatives of the deceased, three sub-tenants were aiso impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 to 7.
( 3 ) IN the amended petitions, it was further contended that the legal representatives of the deceased tenants had not inherited 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 landiord and tenant was no longer alleged to subsist between the parties, the petitions were not maintainable under the 1958 Act. ??, therefore, dismissed both the petitions.
( 4 ) THE Rent Control Tribunal concurred with his views, further holding that the right to sue did not survive and dismissed the appeals. It was against the orders of the Tribunal that these two second appeals were filed in this court by Shri Kedar Nath, the land lord. While the appeals were pending, Kedar Nath died on April 10. 1971. On August 20, 1971 two applications were filed by his legal representatives in each of the two appeals fo have the abatement of appeals set aside, and to be impleaded in his place and for condonation of delay in filing th applications. S. N. Shanker J. before whom these applications came up, referred both appeals to a larger bench, as he found divergence of views of this court on the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to such applications. The matter came up before a Bench consisting of S. N. Andiey C. J. and T. P. S. Chawla J. , who allowed the applications and brought the legal representatives, hereinafter collectively referred to as "the landiord", on record. On merits they noticed that similar quesltiens had been referred for decision to a -larger Bench in another appeal. They, therefore, directed these two appeals to be placed before the same Bench, which was to hear the other appeal. The matters came up before a Division Bench, consisting of S. N. Andiey C. J. , and S. N. Shankar J. They noticed that in one of the appeals, the Sub-tenants were parties to th viction p tition, along with th l gal repr sentatives of th deceased tenants. Reliance was placed on behalf of th appellant landlord on South Asia I
AI
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
