VAS DEV Vs. S SOHAN SMGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One, Shri Wasakha Singh, obtained orders for eviction against the seven tenants on the ground of personal bona fide requirements as provided for inproviso (e) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, he died before the order for eviction could be executed. His sons and daugthers filed an execution application praying that they should be impleaded as the legal representatives of their deceased father and they should be delivered possession of the premises in possession of the tenants. The tenants objected to this prayer of the legal representatives. The Kent Controller rejected the objection of the tenants and Ordered the application of the legal representives. An appeal preferred against the same to the Rent Control Tribunal also failed, and hence, the present second appeals.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants put forward the contention that the order for eviction granted in favour of the landlord on the ground of his personal bona fide requirements was personal to him and after his death the order of eviction cannot be executed by the leral represeniatives. But if in other words, the benefit of the order of eviction does not enure the favour of the legal representatives and if the legal representatives were in need of the premises for their bona fide personal requirements, they will have to start proceedings afresh The learned counsel painted out that there is a difference of opinion on this point between the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Motilal Panna lal v. Kailash Narain, and stated that in view of those conflicting decisions an authoritative pronouncement of this Court is necessary.

(3.) I am of the view that there is really no conflict between the two decisions cited and relied upon by the Tribunals below Before I refer to these two decisions, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provision under which the order for eviction has been passed in this particular case. Proviso (e) to Section 11(1) of the Act is as follows:---