SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(All) 269

Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISHRA,M.P.MEHROTRA
K.B. Agarwala - Appellant
Versus
Chandrawati - Respondent
Decided On : 08/08/1975

Advocates:
Deokinandan and B. Dayal, for Appellant; G.N. Verma and Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

Headnote:

SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION, LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 - RULE 25 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 3 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE BEYOND ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE PARTY IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND SHALL BE REJECTED.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant, Pt. Shiv Charan Lal, who had allegedly left the premises and permitted respondents 3 and 4 to reside there. Pt. Shiv Charan Lal died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his widow, Smt. Chandrawati, applied to be brought on record as his legal representative. The landlord also moved an application to bring Smt. Chandrawati on record, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Smt. Chandrawati challenged the order, arguing that it was passed ex parte without notice to her and that the substitution application was time-barred.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application for substitution of the legal representative was time-barred under Rule 25 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, and Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It also held that the legal representative had a right to contest the substitution application and that the landlord could not move a second application under Section 21 against her.

Issues: 1. Whether the application for substitution of the legal representative was time-barred? 2. Whether the legal representative had a right to contest the substitution application?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 25 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, provides that an application for substitution of the legal representative of a deceased party must be filed within one month from the date of death. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, bars any suit, appeal, or application instituted or made after the prescribed period. 2. The legal representative has a right to contest the substitution application and to claim that any application moved beyond one month shall be rejected in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the landlord's appeal and directed the Prescribed Authority to dispose of the substitution application after due notice to the legal representative.

Judgement

MEHROTRA, J.:- This special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. The brief facts are these: The appellant before us, Sri K.B. Agarwala, is the landlord of premises No. 21, Muir Road, Allahabad. He initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the late Pt. Shiv Charan Lal who was alleged to be the tenant of the said premises. It was alleged that he had left the residence in the said premises and had shifted to Khair in the district of Aligarh. It was alleged that Pt. Shiv Charan Lal had illegally permitted the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to reside in the said premises. The landlord also averred that he was in personal need of the house in question. The three opposite parties to the application under Section 21, namely, Pt. Shiv Charan Lal as well as the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 took several pleas in defence.

An application under Order 11, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was moved by Pt. Shiv Charan Lal seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the landlord. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority before the District Judge, Allahabad also did not succeed. Thereafter, Pt. Shiv Charan Lal moved this Court by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1973. During the pendency of the said petition Pt. Shiv Charan Lal died on 16-9-73. It may be stated here that in the said writ petition a stay order dated 9th March, 1973, was passed staying proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. After the death of Pt. Shiv Charan Lal Smt. Chandrawati, his widow, who is respondent No. 1 in the special appeal, applied to be brought on the record, in the writ petition as the legal representative of the deceased. The substitution was made when the landlord on 3-4-1974 waived his objection. The writ petition came up for final hearing on 13th February, 1974 and the same was dismissed on an undertaking given by Shri Deokinandan, learned counsel for the landlord, that his client would reply to the interrogatories which were sought to be served on him. The dispute went back to the Prescribed Authority. On 2-3-1974 the landlord, Sri K.B. Agarwala, moved an application, a true copy whereof is annexure 7 to the writ petition. It was prayed that Smt. Chadrawati be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Pt. Shiv Charan Lal. In the body of the application circumstances were set out and reasons given as to why the application could not be made earlier. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 4th May, 1974. Smt. Chandrawati moved an application dated 31st July, 1974, a true copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the writ petition, and it was prayed that the aforesaid order dated 4th May, 1974, be set aside and the substitution application moved on 2nd March, 1974, should be dismissed. The landlord, Sri K.B. Agarwala, filed an objection to this application of Smt. Chandrawati. A true copy of the said objection dated 30th August, 1974, is Annexure 10. By its order dated 6th September, 1974, the Prescribed Authority rejected Smt. Chandrawatis application dated 31st July, 1974. Thereafter, the writ petition from which this special appeal has arisen, was filed by Smt. Chandrawati in this Court. She prayed that the order dated 4th May, 1974, be set aside. She also claimed that the order dated 6th September, 1974, be quashed as the same was based on wrong premises and assumptions. There was a further prayer for a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the landlord, Sri K.B. Agarwala, to abide by the undertaking given by his counsel in the earlier writ petition No. 1554 of 1973. The writ petition was allowed by learned single Judge of this Court and the aforesaid orders dated 4th May, 1974, and 6th September, 1974, were quashed. The learned single Judge held that no notice was issued to Smt. Chandrawati of the substitution application (which is dated 22nd February, 1974,













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top