1973 (3) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plication on the preliminary ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision but during its pendency he died on August 22, 1968. Appellants 1 to 4 who are the widow, son and two married daughters of the plaintiff applied for being brought on the record of the appeal as his legal representatives. The tenant opposed that application on the narrow ground that the son and daughter of a deceased daughter of the plaintiff ought also to have been impleaded to the application and since that was not done, the appeal had abated. By its order dated December 13, 1968 the Rent Control Tribunal, which was seized of the appeal allowed these two persons also to be impleaded as appellants. By a further order dated January 2, 1969 the Tribunal set aside the decision recorded by the Additional Rent Controller on the preliminary issue and remanded the ejectment application for a decision on merits. These two "heirs" are now appellant 5 and 6. Second appeal 107 of 1969 filed by the tenant against the order of remand/was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on February 20, 1970. 4. As the order of remind passed by the Rent Control Tribunal was not staye....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation and assault, or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party and except also cases "where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed" or granting it would be nugatory. We can duly press into service and that too indirectly, the analogy of the first part of the last exception in an effort to find whether after the death of the plaintiff in the instant case the relief sought could not be enjoyed by his legal representatives. 9. Though the plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, it is as if he died during the pendency of the suit because the suit was dismissed on a preliminary issue concerning the validity of the notices to quit and was remanded in appeal for trial on the merits. It is patent and would be a truism to say that the death of the plaintiff will not cause the ejectment proceedings to abate if the right to sue survives. That is the formula contained in Order 22 Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 bonafide 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7) DLT 363 the death of the landlord occurred after the Rent Control Tribunal had held in appeal, reversing the judgment of the Controller, that the premises were required by the landlord for the use of himself and his wife Under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was held that the wife was a member of the landlord's family and as "the need of the landlord for the premises was assessed to be both for himself and his wife",, the cause of action consisted of the need of both and therefore it survived to the widow. The judgment of the High Court in the Instant case was cited before the learned single Judge but was distinguished by him on the ground that the requirements of the legal representatives here were not determined by the Controller, prior to the death of the plaintiff. The point of distinction could be that the decree for possession passed in favour of the landlord could be defended by his legal representatives for the benefit of his estate. 17. In Smt. Dhan Devi and Anr. v. Bakhshi Ram and Anr. an application for ejectment was filed by the landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ground on which possession was sought by the landlord was that h....