CHAMAN LAL DECEASED Vs. SMT. AMRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision of the orders of the Controller and the Appellate Authority directing eviction of the sole tenant Chaman Lal from the residential building in dispute on the ground that the same was bona fide required by Amrit Kaur, the landlady, for her own occupation, was originally filed by the tenant himself who, it is admitted on all hands, was what is known as a statutory tenant but who died during the pendency of the petition. He left him surviving 5 sons, 2 daughters and a widow, all of whom Were substituted as Petitioners as Chaman Lal's legal representatives, in acceptance of an application made by them. Their learned Counsel Mr. Sarin, however, now contends that the petition should be dismissed as having abated. In support of his contention reliance is placed by him on Balkesh and Anr. v. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1972 P.L.R. 320 wherein I laid down the following two propositions of law:

(2.) IF this decision holds the field, the contention raised by -Mr. Sarin is unexceptionable but I am afraid, it is no longer good law (except in so far as it states that the right to remain in occupation of certain premises as a statutory tenant is personal to that tenant) in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.C. Chatterjee and Ors. v. Sri Kishan Tandon and Anr. : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2526. In that case also the landlord claimed ejectment of a statutory tenant on the ground that the former required the house in dispute bona fide for the residence of himself and his family. His claim was decreed by the first Court but negatived in appeal. He filed a second appeal in the Rajasthan High Court, during the pendency of which the tenant died and his widow and children were brought on the record as his heirs and legal representatives. The widow also died before the second appeal was heard, leaving behind her children as her heirs who were already on the record as legal representatives of the tenant. The High Court accepted the appeal. In a third appeal filed by the children of the tenant it was contended that they were entitled in their own right to urge that the landlord did not require the premises reasonably and bona fide and that, on the other hand, if they could not be regarded as tenants, no decree of eviction could be passed against them. Repelling both the contentions their Lordships observed:

(3.) ALL the four propositions are fully applicable to the present case also. Chaman Lal being a statutory tenant had only a personal right to continue in possession till evicted therefrom in accordance with law. However, when he died the right of the landlady to obtain possession of the building in dispute survived to her. Similarly, the right to continue the petition and to urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except such as were personal to him survived to his legal representatives who were, therefore, rightly substituted for him. All the same they could not be allowed to raise the contention which was personal to Chaman Lal and which on his death was not open to them that the landlady did not bona fide require the building in dispute for her own occupation.