RAM RAKSH PAL Vs. BRIJ NANDAN SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the landlord of an accommodation for ejectment of his tenant and for rent and damages.

(2.) ONE Shanti Swaroop was originally the owner of the accommodation and Brij Nandan Swarup alias Brij Naridan Lal defendant occupied the accommodation as a tenant on his behalf on a monthly rent of Rs 10. Shanti Swaroop made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to bring a suit for the eviction of the tenant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on the basis of a compromise between Shanti Swaroop and the defendant granting permission to Shanti Swaroop to bring a suit for eviction of the defendant in case the defendant failed to vacate the house by 31st July, 1957. The defendant did not, however, vacate the house. Shanti Swaroop did not take any proceeding for the eviction of the defendant and on 17th April 1958 he sold the accommodation to Ram Rakshpal plaintiff. On 6-12-1958 the plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the defendant.

(3.) IN the case of Sajjan Singh v. Smt. Jamuna Bala Devi, AIR 1960 All 410 it was certainly held by Dhavan, J. that a permission granted to the landlord under S. 3 of the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act confers upon him a personal right which is not transferable to his successor-in-interest. This view was, however, not accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. Smt. Mohania, 1963 All LJ 198 and it was held that the person, who applies for a permission under S. 3 of the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, does so in his capacity as a landlord and the permission is granted to him in the same capacity in order to enable him to obtain possession of the accommodation by the eviction of the tenant occupying it. According to the Division Bench there is no question of conferring any personal right in the grant of a permission and the benefit of the permission cannot, therefore, be confined to the person to whom the permission was granted. The Bench also observed that if a permission is obtained by a landlord as a landlord there appears no reason why it should come to an end on his death and it should not enure for the benefit of the person who succeeds him as a landlord.