MAIKOO Vs. UMA SHANKAR BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This second appeal is by a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The conclusion which found favour with the courts below was to the effect that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the defendant appellant was of unsound mind when the suit was filed. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application for appointment of a guardian for the appellant. In this connection, it was proposed that Smt. Brij Rani, wife of the appellant, be appointed as guardian. The counsel for the proposed guardian had stated before the trial court that he had no objection to his client being appointed as guardian. Accordingly, the trial court appointed Smt. Brij Rani as guardian for the appellant.

(3.) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before me has been that steps in accordance with law for the appointment of guardian for the appellant, who was admittedly of unsound mind, were not taken in the trial court so that the appellant could not properly defend himself in the suit. My attention in this connection has been specifically drawn to R. 3 of O. XXXII of the Civil P.C. It has been pointed out that it was incumbent upon the trial court to have satisfied itself that Smt. Brij Rani was a person fit to be appointed as the guardian for the appellant after making due enquiry in the matter, with particular reference to the availability or otherwise of a better person to act as guardian for the appellant. This according to the learned counsel was not done.