BHAJAN LAL Vs. BANARSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant- petitioner against whom an order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) Smt. Primilla Wati widow of Banarsi Dass (now deceased) filed an application for ejectment against Bhajan Lal, Manager and Karta of the joint Hindu Family consisting of the heirs of Balkrishan Dass, the original tenant. The premises in dispute consists of a residential building No. 1691- 92/10(Old) at present 155/X-I situated on the Inner Circular Road Beri Gate, Amritsar. The said house was purchased by Smt. Primilla Wati vide registered sale deed dated June 15, 1971 from its original owner, Dr. Baldev Singh. The ejectment application was filed on January 30, 1972, inter alia on the ground that she bona fide required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant-petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(3.) The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after the death of the original landlady Smt. Primilla Wati, who sought the ejectment of the tenant, on the ground of her personal necessity, her application was liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phool Rani and others v. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, 1973 AIR(SC) 2110 However, in the later Supreme Court judgment reported in Shantilal Thakordas and others v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, 1976 AIR(SC) 2358 it was held that in the case of an eviction; suit on the ground that the landlord required the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family, after the death of the landlord right to sue survived to the members of the deceased landlord's family. It has been further held that the requirement of accommodation of family members of the landlord could not be said to be the requirement of landlord himself and did not, therefore, cease on his death. After the death of original landlord the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of other members of his family. The earlier judgment in Smt. Phool Rani's case was overruled. Under these circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no force and cannot be accepted. Moreover, in the present case the landlady died after the order of ejectment had been passed in her favour by the Rent Controller.