NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA Vs. PHOOL RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 arising out of an ejectment petition brought by the landlord on the ground of hona fide personal necessity. It was claimed in the petition that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord as a residence for himself and his family. Initially, the ejectment petition was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller on 4th March 1968 on the ground that there was no notice terminating the contractual tenancy and hence the application was not maintainable. The landlord appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, which held that a valid notice had been given terminating the tenancy and the case was remanded back to the Controller. However, during the pendency of that appeal, the landlord died and his legal representatives were substituted as appellants in the case. This Court also affirmed the decision of the Tribunal in second appeal.

(2.) On remand, the Rent Controller held that the claim for bona fide personal requirement was established and passed an order of ejectment. An appeal was taken by the tenant to the Rest Control Tribunal which was rejected. The main ground which was urged by the tenant before the Tribunal was as to whether the cause of action survived the death of the landlord who had instituted the application for eviction. This objection was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was also a claim based on the requirement of the family in the original ejectment petition and, hence the same could be continued by the legal representatives after they became parties-

(3.) I have heard Mr. Lekhi on behalf of the appellant. His contention is that a bona fide personal requirement cannot survive the death of the person. As far as the heirs are concerned, his contention is that they can rely on their own personal requirement as landlords but that is not the subject-matter or the case. His submission is that this appeal should be accepted and if the legal representatives have any right they can make it the subject-matter of another ejectment application. Mr. Man Singh, learned counsel of the resplendent, on the other hand submits that there are several decisions of the Courts. including this High Court, to the effect that an application for bona fide personal requirement can be continued by the legal representatives. I may now turn to the various authorities cited. In Vus Dev v. Sohan Singh and others, 1968 D.L.T. 492, an objection was raised by the tenant at the stage of execution that the decree passed on the ground of personal born fide requirement could not be executed after the death of the decree-holder. This objection was rejected by Ismail J on the ground that the executing court could not go behind the decree. In Arjan Dass v. Madan Lal, 1970, R.C.R. 785, the ejectment order was passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and an objection was raised that the legal representative who had succeeded under a Will was not entitled to execute the order. This was rejected and the aforementioned judgment of Ismail J. was followed, in Anil Kumar v. Jai Narain Gautam, 1970, R.C.R. 757, an ejectment decree was passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and his family. The landlord died during the pendency of the tenant's appeal which was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the cause of action had disappeared; but, in second appeal the case was remanded back on the ground that the Tribunal should consider the change of circumstances that had come about, and decide the case on the basis that the legal representatives' necessity should be considered, especially as this had already been pleaded in the ejectment petition.