KEDAR NATH Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that has arisen in these 2 S.A.O. No. 6 & 54 of 1968 is : Can the proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called the Act initiated for the eviction of a tenant, after terminating his contractual tenancy, be continued after his death and eviction order be passed against his legal representatives ?

(2.) Shri Kedar Nath, the predecessor in interest of the present appellants in both appeals filed 2 separate eviction applications, U/S 14 of the Act, against his tenants, who held two separate premises 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 eviction was sought were non-payment of an ears of rent, after service of notice of demand referred to in clause (a) of the proviso to S. 14(1) of the Act, sub-letting without landlord's consent (Cl. (b) of the said proviso) and misuser of the premises (Cl. (c) of the proviso). In the other which has given rise to SAO 54 of 1968, the tenants were Prabhu and Maman Lal, and the grounds for eviction besides the aforementioned 3 grounds were non-residence of the tenant in the premises (cl. (d) of the proviso) and substantial damage to the premises (Cl. J) of the proviso). The tenants in both the premises died while proceedings were pending before the Additional Rent Controller. Their legal representatives who did not dispute their character as such, were brought on record and amended petitions were filed. In SAO 54 of 1968, besides the legal representatives of the deceased, their sub-tenants were also impleaded as respondents no. 5 to 7.

(3.) In the amended petitions it was further contended that the legal representatives of the deceased tenants had not inharited 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 landlord and tenant was no longer alleged to subsist between the parties, the petitions were not maintainable under the 1958 Act. He, therefore, dismissed both the petitions. The Rent Control Tribunal concurred with this view, further holding that the right to sue did not survive and dismissed the appeals. Against the orders of the Tribunal these 2 appeals were filed in this Court by Sh. Kidar Nath, the landlord.