SANNI Vs. SADA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the only question that has arisen for consideration is whether the landlord after obtaining an order of eviction against his tenant, who dies subsequent to the passing of the said order against him, cannot have it executed against his legal representatives

(2.) On behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased, who are the appellants before me, it is contended that they are not the tenants and, therefore, the Additional Controller had no jurisdiction to execute the eviction order against them, as the Act, according to them, is confined to disputes between landlords and tenants alone.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is unfounded. Under sectior 32 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, herein called 'the Act' the controller has been given specific jurisdiction, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, to execute such an order against all persons, who may be in occuption of the premises and o evict them therefrom. The executing arm of the Controller has no been restricted upto the tenant or the ex-tenant. Apart from this, undei ection 37 of the Act, the Controller is required to follow, as far as may be, the practice and procedure of the court of Small Causes, which, of course, subject to certain exceptions, is laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, the Controller is to be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Code, a specific provisions has been made in section 50 to the effect that where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree had been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the court, which passed it, to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased. The Controller, therefore, takes his guidance also from this section and is enabled to execute the eviction order against the legal representatives of the deceased.