KEDAR NATH Vs. MOHANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Th main question that has arisen in th se two Second Appeals from Orders Nos. 6 and 54 of 1968 is: Can the proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the 1958 Act', initiated for the viction of a tenant, after terminating his contractual tenancy, be continued after his death; and viction order passed against his l gal repr sentatives?

(2.) Shri Kedar Nath, the predecessor-in-interest of the pr sent appellants in both appeals, filed two separate viction applications, under section 14 of the 1958 Act, against his tenants, who held two separate promises on lease under him. The contractual tenancies in both cases, had been terminated earlier, by service of notices to quit. In one proceeding, which has given rise to SAO 6 of 1968, the tenant was Naubat Ram, and the grounds on which viction was sought were non-payment of arrears of rent, after service of notice of demand referred to in clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the 1958 Act, subletting without landiord's consent [clause (b) of the said proviso] and misuser of the premises [clause (c) of the proviso]. In the other which hag given rise to SAO 54 of 1968, the tenants were Prabhu Dayal and Mamman Lai, and th grounds for eviction besides the aforesaid three grounds, were non-residence of the tenant in the premises [clause (d) of the proviso] and substantial damage to the premises [clause (j) of the proviso]. The tenants in both the premises died while proceedings were pending before the Additional Controller. Their legal representatives, who did not dispute their character as such, were brought on record and amended petitions were filed. In proceeding against Prabhu Dayal and Mamman Lai, (SAO 54 of 1968), besides four legal representatives of the deceased, three sub-tenants were aiso impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 to 7.

(3.) In the amended petitions, it was further contended that the legal representatives of the deceased tenants had not inherited the tenancy rights, because the tenancies were "statutory" and personal to the tenants in nature; and the legal representatives had, therefore, no right to remain in possession. The Additional Controller was of the view that as the relationship of landiord and tenant was no longer alleged to subsist between the parties, the petitions were not maintainable under the 1958 Act. ??, therefore, dismissed both the petitions.