PHOOL RANI Vs. NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who in a Rent Act application against his tenant sought possession of certain premises on the ground of personal requirement, died pending the application. The question for decision is whether the cause of action would survive to his legal representatives or whether, as contended by the tenant, the application must abate.

(2.) On June 28, 1962 a flat at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant. On failure of the defendant to comply with two notices to quit, plaintiff filed an ejectment application under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Act") Possession was sought from the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family".

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision but during its pendency he died on August 22, 1968. Appellants 1 to 4 who are the widow, son and two married daughters of the plaintiff applied for being brought on the record of the appeal as his legal representatives. The tenant opposed that application on the narrow ground that the son and daughter of a deceased daughter of the plaintiff ought also to have been impleaded to the application and since that was not done, the appeal had abated. By its order dated December 13, 1968 the Rent Control Tribunal, which was seized of the appeal allowed these two persons also to be impleaded as appellants. By a further order dated January 2, 1969 the Tribunal set aside the decision recorded by the Additional Rent Controller on the preliminary issue and remanded the ejectment application for a decision on merits. These two "heirs" are now appellants 5 and 6. Second appeal 107 of 1969 filed by the tenant against the order of remand, was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on 20-2-1970.