HARI CHAND Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAN Dass landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his tenant for his ejectment from the house on the ground that he has not paid the arrears of rent; has impaired the value and utility of premises and he requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation. He further averred that he is staying in a rented house. The said petition was contested by the tenant on the ground that he has not impaired the value and utility of the premises in question. The arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing. The ground of personal necessity was also resisted. The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the tenant has tendered the rent on the first date of hearing and thus the ejectment cannot be ordered on the ground that he is in arrears of rent. With regard to the ground of impairing the value and utility of the building, it was found that the landlord had failed to prove that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the building. However, an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant as it was found by the learned Rent Controller that the premises in dispute was required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Being aggrieved of the order of ejectment, the tenant filed an appeal before the learned appellant authority. During the pendency of the appeal, Bhagwan Dass died and an application was filed on 6.3.1987 by his legal representatives, namely, five sons and a daughter, who are all married, for bringing themselves on record in place of Bhagwan Dass. Subsequently the said application was not pressed nor the factum of death of Bhagwan Dass brought to the notice of learned appellate authority at the time of decision of the appeal. The learned appellate authority affirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation. The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) MR . Ashish Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the ground of personal necessity is not available to the legal representatives of the deceased as the ground of personal necessity ceased to exist with the death of Bhagwan Dass. The learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that Bhagwan Dass died during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jaswant Singh v. Krishan Kumar, 1984(1) RLR 160, wherein it has been held that where an order of ejectment has been passed in favour of the landlord for his own occupation and he having died during the pendency of the revision, the ground of personal necessity ceases to exist with the death of the landlord because the cause of action was personal to the landlord. He has also referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as P. Venketaswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1409, for the proposition that the revisional court can take cognizance of the subsequent events and if subsequent events disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction, the High Court in revision is bound to take note of the subsequent events in disposing of proceedings. Admittedly, Bhagwan Dass sought ejectment and pleaded in his ejectment petition that he requires the premises for his own occupation. He nowhere stated that the premises are required for the occupation of his family also. The requirement of the members of the deceased would be basically different from that of the landlord and, therefore, the right to sue will not survive to the legal representatives and they cannot claim the benefit of the original right to sue. When an ejectment application is based on the personal need of the landlord and the landlord dies during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, as in the present case during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, his legal representatives cannot take advantage of an order of ejectment which was passed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord alone. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that both the authorities below have found in favour of the landlord i.e. Bhagwan Dass deceased and this Court should not interfere in revisional jurisdiction. I am of the view that once the landlord who sought ejectment on the ground of his own personal use and occupation and not for his family, then on his death, his legal representatives cannot take advantage of the ejectment order which was passed in his favour by the learned Rent Controller. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order of ejectment passed by the authorities below is set aside. However, it will be open to the legal representatives to file ejectment application, if so advised, on the ground of their personal necessity and the learned Rent Controller will decide the same on merits. Parties area left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.