An order for eviction obtained by a landlord on the ground of personal bona fide requirements is not personal to the landlord and can be executed by his legal representatives.

( 1 ) ONE, Shri Wasakha Singh, obtained orders for eviction against the seven tenants on the ground of personal bona fide requirements as provided for inproviso (e) to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, he died before the order for eviction could be executed. His sons and daugthers filed an execution application praying that they should be impleaded as the legal representatives of their deceased father and they should be delivered possession of the premises in possession of the tenants. The tenants objected to this prayer of the legal representatives. The Kent Controller rejected the objection of the tenants and Ordered the application of the legal representives. An appeal preferred against the same to the Rent Control Tribunal also failed, and hence, the present second appeals.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants put forward the contention that the order for eviction granted in favour of the landlord on the ground of his personal bona fide requirements was personal to him and after his death the order of eviction cannot be executed by the leral represeniatives. But if in other words, the benefit of the order of eviction does not enure the favour of the legal representatives and if the legal representatives were in need of the premises for their bona fide personal requirements, they will have to start proceedings afresh The learned counsel painted out that there is a difference of opinion on this point between the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Motilal Panna lal v. Kailash Narain, and stated that in view of those conflicting decisions an authoritative pronouncement of this Court is necessary.

( 3 ) I am of the view that there is really no conflict between the two decisions cited and relied upon by the Tribunals below Before I refer to these two decisions, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provision under which the order for eviction has been passed in this particular case. Proviso (e) to Section 11 (1) of the Act is as follows:---

"14. Protection of Tenant against eviction. (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant ; Provided 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 following grounds only, namely : - * * * (e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or lor any member of the family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation; * * It can be immediately seen that with reference to the points in controversy in this case, this statutory provision contains two features The first feature is that the landlord can apply for an order of eviction not only on the ground that he requires the premises bona fide tor occupation for himself but also for any member of the family dependent on him, The second feature is that this statutory requirement has to be fulfilled before a Court or the Controller can make an Older for the recovery of possession of the premises. With reference to the facts of this case, it is clear from the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal that the landlord in this case applied for eviction of the tenants for the bona fide requirements not only of himself but of his wife, four sons aged 12 years, 15 years, 20 years and 2,5 years and three unmarried daughters aged 11 years, 13 years and 16 years, who were all dependent on him. Only on taking into account these requirements, the orders of eviction were passed. It is