KEDAR NATH METHI Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Mr. Banwari Sharma, advocate appears for respondents.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN Smt. Phool Rani's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held that legal representatives of landlord (since deceased) cannot continue the suit for ejectment filed by landlord on the ground of personal requirement. Para 11, 12 and 20 of the said judgment are reproduced as under: &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" 11. Thus, the requirement pleaded in the ejectment application and on which the plaintiff has founded his right to relief is his requirement, or to use an expression which will effectively bring out the real point, his personal requirement. If the ejectment application succeeds - we will forget for a moment that the plaintiff is dead - the premises in the possession of the tenant may come to be occupied by the plaintiff and the members of his family but that does not make the requirement pleaded in the application any the less a personal requirement of the plaintiff. That the members of his family must reside with him is his requirement, not theirs. Such a personal cause of action must perish with the plaintiff. 12. If the appellants were permitted to continue the proceedings, the lis will assume a complexion wholly beyond the compass of the original cause of action. INdeed, it is difficult to see how, without a fundamental alteration of the pleadings, appellants could continue the proceedings. Such an alteration will fall beyond the scope of amendment of pleadings permissible under a most liberal interpretation of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, who owned the premises, was entitled under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act to ask for possession thereof on the ground that his wife and the other members of his family dependent on him must live with him but that there was not enough space at his disposal to accommodate them. Section 14 (1) (e) provides to the extent material for the present purposes, that the Controller may make an order for possession on the ground "that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation". If the plaintiff were alive, the main issues for determination in the ejectment proceedings would have been; (1) whether the plaintiff requires the premises for his occupation and for the occupation of his wife, son, daughter-in-law and 3 grand-children; (2) whether the aforesaid requirement is bona fide and (3) whether the plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The appellants' emergence in the proceedings will require the determination of wholly different and distinct issues. Their requirement, not that of the plaintiff, and the availability to them - not to the plaintiff - of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation will now form the centre of conflict. It is relevant on this aspect to remember that amongst the appellants are 2 married daughters of the deceased plaintiff and 2 children of a deceased daughter of his. Their requirement would be basically different from that of the plaintiff and an examination of facts and circumstances in regard thereto will open up a new vista of inquiry. The plaintiff's right to sue will therefore not survive to the appellants and they cannot glean the benefit of the original right to sue. 20. We have referred to some of the decisions in the three categories, not with a view to determining their correctness but only in order to show that they rest on different principles or could be explained in reference to such principles. We are concerned with a matter not involving the application of any of those principles. For reasons already stated, we are of the view that considering the nature of the claim made in the instant case and the bundle of facts which constitute the plaintiff's cause of action, his right to sue will not survive to his legal representatives. "