RAMSHARAN Vs. RAMAVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this second appeal by the defendant-tenants is whether the legal representatives of the landlord (since deceased) have no right to continue the suit for eviction based on bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and for the residence of the members of his family?

(2.) To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. Munshiram (now deceased) filed a suit for eviction against the defendant- appellants on two-fold grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bona fide for the use and occupation of himself and the members of his family and secondly, that the defendants had committed default in payment of rent. The appellants resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use or for the use of his family members. The defendants further pleaded that they had tendered the rent by money order to the plaintiff and as such they committed no default in payment of rent. They also took the plea that the notice to quit sent by the plaintiff was not valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. The trial court after evidence decided all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff Munshiram then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Alwar. During the pendency of the appeal, Munshiram died and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place as the appellants. The learned District Judge on consideration of the evidence led by the parties held that (sic) finding of the trial court on issue No. (sic) was wholly erroneous. According to (sic) learned District Judge, it stood established from the evidence of P.W. 1 Munshiram, P.W. 2 Ramavtar, P.W 3 (sic) Lal. P.W. 4 Jwalasahai and P.W. 5 (sic) lal that the accommodation with (sic) plaintiff was not sufficient, for the members of his family which expanded as (sic) . result of the marriages of his two so(sic) and birth of grand children. The learned District Judge further held that from the evidence produced by the plaintiff it was also proved that there were frequent quarrels between the plaintiff's two sons and their wives and there was no peace in the family. It therefore became necessary for the plaintiff to separate one of his married sons and to keep him in the suit premises, along with his wife and children. It is argued before the learned District Judge that the urgency for the additional accommodation was reduced on the death of the plaintiff Munshiram. The learned District Judge repelled this argument on the ground that it was not necessary for the court to take note of the circumstances which had arisen after the appeal was filed. He accordingly reversed the finding on issue No. 1 and held that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bona fide. He further held that the notice to quit served on the defendants was valid. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. As regards issue No. 2 relating to default in the payment of rent, it appears that the defendants-tenants made payment and the issue became redundant, The defendants have now preferred this second appeal.

(3.) Shri S.K. Keshote, the learned advocate for the appellants contends that the right to sue on the basis of personal necessity did not survive to the heirs of the deceased-landlord Munshiram. He emphasised that the bona fide requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and his family members was the personal requirement of the landlord Munshiram and such a personal cause of action perished with the death of the landlord. Reliance is placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolrani v. Naubatrai Ahluwalia, AIR 1973 SC 2110. In my opinion, the contention is devoid of force. Smt. Phoolrani's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. In that case, their Lordships observed: "The survival of the right to sue on the death of a plaintiff is a problem that has often to be solved on a permutation of several facts and circumstances." Their Lordships then added :