SMT. JARINA Vs. SMT. HAZZANIBAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/tenant has directed this revision against order dtd. 18.5.95 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A97/(7)411/84 -85, thereby allowing the application filed by deceased Respondent Hazzanibai and the non -applicant No. 2 under Section 23 (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short the Act) for eviction of the applicant on the ground of relationship and landlady and tenant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Deceased Hazzani Bai and non -applicant No. 2 Mohd. Yusuf filed an application before the R.C.A. Indore under Section 23 (a) of the Act for eviction of the applicant form the house No. 661 situated at Azad Nagar, Indore in occupation of the applicant as tenant. It is alleged that the suit house was let to the applicant for residence on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation for the residence of deceased landlady Hazzanibai. The application was resisted on behalf of the applicant/tenant on various grounds. Learned R.C.A on evaluation of the evidence available on record, allowed the application filed on behalf of the non -applicant landlady and passed an order of eviction against the applicant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation for deceased Hazzanibai. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision under Section 23 (a) of the Act.

(2.) I have heard Shri N.K. Patni, L.C. for the Petitioner and Mrs. Kathmore, L.C. for the Respondents. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the revision, original landlady Hazzanibai expired and her legal representatives are substituted in this revision. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the facts stated in para 17 of the application filed before the R.C.A. under Section 23 (a) of the Act, the suit accommodation was required bonafide by the landlady for the residence of deceased Hazzanibai. Learned Counsel contended that as a result of the death of Hazzanibai the alleged need of the suit accommodation for residence of said Hazzanibai comes to an end and on this very ground the order of eviction passed by the R.C.A. deserves to be set aside. A reliannce is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Shantilal Jain v. Narendra kumar (deceased) through L. Rs. reported in, 1990 MP ACJ Note 86 and in case of Santosh Jaiswal v. Joseph and Anr. : 1999 (2) MPJR 19. As against this, non -applicant submitted that as the landlady Hazzanibai expired after the impugned order of the R.C.A. the order of the R.C.A. can not be set aside on the ground that the bonafide need of the suit accommodation also comes to an end. I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order. On perusal of the facts stated in the para 17 of the application filed under Section 23 (a) of the Act before the R.C.A. it emerged that the suit accommodation was required bonafide for the residence of the deceased Hazzanibai. As such due to the death of said Hazzanibai during the pendency of the revision petition, the need of the suit accommodation as stated in the petition comes to an end the cause of action for the eviction on the alleged need does not survive after death Hazzanibai. in Shantilal Jain's case (supra) in the similar circumstances, this Court has held as under: Where the bonafide requirement is for profession of the Plaintiff, the requirement does not survive on the death of the Plaintiff.

(3.) ON perusal it also emerged that on the death of Hazzanibai, the L Rs of the deceased have been substituted in this revision. It is worth noting that any of the L Rs. of Hazzanibai, substituted in this revision does not fall under the categories of the landlords as defined under Section 23 (j) of the Act. As such, the non -applicant L Rs. of deceased Hazzanibai can not continue the proceedings of eviction instituted on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation for residence under special provisions of S. 23 (a) of the Act. In this respect, in case of Santosh Kumar (supra) this Court has held that: A landlady on specified category (widow) filed an application for eviction after her death, the L Rs can not continue with the application, They have to file separate suit under Section 12 of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as also law applicable, as the suit accommodation was required bonafide for the residence of deceased Hazzanibai, the alleged need also comes to an end on the death of said Hazzanibai during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. None of the L Rs. of the deceased belong to said category of the landlords as defined under Section 23 (j) of the Act. The cause of action never survives to the Respondents for proceeding with the case instituted by deceased Hazzanibai for eviction of the application under Section 23 (a) of the Act.