MODI J.—The only point involved in this second appeal by the defendant-tenants is whether the legal representatives of the landlord (since deceased) have no right to continue the suit tor eviction based on bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and for the residence of the members of his family.

2. To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. Munshiram (now deceased) filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellants on two-fold grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself and the members of his family and secondly, that the defendants had committed default in payment of rent. The appellants resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use or for the use of his family members. The defendants further pleaded that they had tendered the rent by money order to the plaintiff and as such they committed no default in payment of rent. They also took the plea that the notice to quit sent by the plaintiff was not valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:—

¼1½ vk;k tk;nkn eqruktk dh oknh dh usd o tk;t t:jr gS\

¼2½ vk;k eqnk;yk us fdjk;k VsUMj fd;k vksj euhvksMZj }kjk Hkstk blfy;s fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dksbZ fMQkYV ugh fd;k\

¼3½ vk;k uksfVl butyk; uktk;t gS\

¼4½ nknjlh D;k gksxh\

The trial court after evidence decided all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff Munshiram then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Alwar. During the pendency of the appeal, Munshiram died and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place as the appellants The learned District Judge on consideration of the evidence led by the parties held that the finding of the trial court on issue No 1 was wholly erroneous According to the learned District Judge, it stood established from the evidence of PW 1 Munshiram. PW 2 Ramavtar, PW 3 Behari Lal, PW 4 Jwalasahai and PW 5 Brijlal that the accommodation with the plaintiff was not sufficient for the members of his family which expanded as a result of the marriages of his two sons and birth of grand children. The learned District Judge further held that from the evidence produced by the plaintiff it was also proved that there were frequent quarrels between the plaintiffs two sons and their wives and there was no peace in the family It therefore became necessary for the plaintiff to separate one of his married sons and to keep him in the suit premises, along with his wife and children. It is argued before the learned District Judge that the urgency for the additional accommodation was reduced on the death of the plaintiff Munshiram. The learned District Judge repelled this argument on the ground that it was not necessary for the court to take note of the circumstances which had arisen after the appeal was filed. He accordingly reversed the findings on issue No 1 and held that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide. He further held that the notice to quit served on the defendants was valid. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. As regards issue No. 2 relating to default in the payment of rent, it appears that the defendant tenants made payment and the issue became redundant. The defendants have now preferred this second appeal.

3 Shri S.K. Keshote, the learned advocate for the appellants contends that the right to sue on the basis of personal necessity did not survive to the heirs of the deceased-landlord Munshiram. He emphasised that the bona fide requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and his family members was the personal requirement of the landlord Munshiram and such a personal cause of action perished with the death of the landlord. Reliance is placed on the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolrani vs. Sh. Nau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document