SURJIT KUMARI Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Gopi Nath was the landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed an ejectment application against his tenant, Madan Lal, (respondent herein) on the ground of personal necessity. Personal necessity was claimed for himself as well as for the members of his family. The ground of nuisance was also taken. Ejectment application was being contested by Madan Lal. During the pendency of the ejectment application, Gopi Nath died. His legal representatives made an application for being impleaded in place of Gopi Nath, deceased. The said application was contested by Madan Lal. The Rent Controller relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phool Rani and others v. Shri Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, AIR 1973 SC 2110, declined the prayer of the legal representatives with regard to personal necessity, but allowed them to be impleaded only with regard to ground of nuisance. This order is being impugned by them in the present revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the revision petition deserves to succeed. In the ejectment application, landlord had claimed that requirement of the premises in dispute is not only for himself but also for the members of his family. Nothing has been brought on record to show that requirement of the family has ceased to exist. The judgment aforesaid, relied upon by the trial Court, was specifically overruled in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Shantilal Thakordas and others v. Chimanlal Madan Lal Telwala, AIR 1976 SC 2358, in which it was held that requirement of the landlord for use of himself enures to his family members. Requirement for occupation of family members of the landlord cannot be said to be requirement of the landlord himself and does not, therefore, cease on his death. After the death of the original landlord, other members of his family take his place and are, therefore, competent to continue ejectment application, for their occupation.

(3.) PARTIES through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 10.2.1993. Petition dismissed.