Skip to content


Jagdish Chander (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Brahm Dutt - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.A.O. No. 112 of 1971, against order of G.C. Jain. Rant Control Tribunal, Delhi. D/- 12-1-1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1974Delhi94
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act - Sections 14(1)
AppellantJagdish Chander (Decd.) and ors.
RespondentBrahm Dutt
Appellant Advocate R.L. Aggarwal and ; M. Vachar, Advs
Respondent Advocate S.P. Mahajan, Adv.
Cases ReferredJ. C. Chatterjee v. Shri Kishan Tandon
Excerpt:
.....relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of a minor child. - in paragraph 11 the supreme court observed that they were entitled to make any defense appropriate to their character as legal representatives since they could not even inherit the statutory protection enjoyed by the deceased they could not in the present case the legal representatives of the decease appellant have not urged any ground peculiar to court decision cited above they are not have not urged any court decision cited entitled to the protection of s......these findings.2. during the pendency of the appeal the tenant died on an application made by the legal representatives of the tenant the deputy registrar directed their names to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant this order was passed by the subject to all just exception'. the respondent thereupon made an application that the appeal has become infructuous on the death of the tenant and is liable to be dismissed.3. the deceased tenant was only a statutory tenant inasmuch as the tenancy has been validly determined by the landlord by a notice to quit. according to the supreme court decision in anand niwas (pvt) ltd v. anandji kalyanji pedhi. : [1964]4scr892 .' a person remaining to occupation of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of.....
Judgment:

1. This second appeal was originally filed by the tenant Jagdish Chander against the order of the Rent Tribunal found that the tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit and the subsequent acceptance of rent form the tenant by the landlord did not amount to a waiver of the said notice in view of the decision of the supreme court in Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartika Chandra Das. : [1961]3SCR813 . It further held that the Landlord was entitled to the possession of the premises from the tenant because them bonafie for his own occupation as a residence within the meaning of clause (e) for the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) I agree with both these findings.

2. During the pendency of the appeal the tenant died on an application made by the legal representatives of the tenant the Deputy registrar directed their names to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant this order was passed by the subject to all just exception'. The respondent thereupon made an application that the appeal has become infructuous on the death of the tenant and is liable to be dismissed.

3. The deceased tenant was only a statutory tenant inasmuch as the tenancy has been validly determined by the landlord by a notice to quit. According to the Supreme court decision in Anand Niwas (Pvt) Ltd v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi. : [1964]4SCR892 .

' A person remaining to occupation of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly though in law not accurately called a 'statutory' tenant such a person is not a tenant at premises occupied by him he has merely he has the protection of the statute in that he cannot turned out so long as the pays that standard rent and permitted increases, if any and performs the other conditions of the tenancy his right to remain possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy is personal it is not capable of being transferred or assigned and devolves on his death only on the manner provided by the statutes.'

4.Under the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 a person against whom an order for eviction is passed ceases to be a tenant the deceased was thereforee only entitled to the protection of the Act in his personal capacity alone. He a could not pass this protection to his assignees or legal representatives the legal of the entitled to the protection of Section 14 of the Act.

5.The decision in Anand Niwas case : [1964]4SCR892 was followed by the Supreme Court again in J. C. Chatterjee v. Shri Kishan Tandon : [1973]1SCR850 . In that case the second appeal has been filed by the pendency of the said appeal. The legal representatives were brought on record. In paragraph 11 the supreme court observed that they were entitled to make any defense appropriate to their character as legal representatives since they could not even inherit the statutory protection enjoyed by the deceased they could not in the present case the legal representatives of the decease appellant have not urged any ground peculiar to court decision cited above they are not have not urged any court decision cited entitled to the protection of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It follows thereforee that the landlord is entitled to evict them under Clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 inasmuch as the legal representative cannot make in fact the landlord can simply evict them on the sole ground that the tenancy of the deceased having been terminated they have no right to resist the claim of the landlord for possession. However as the original claim of the landlord against the deceased tenant was made under clause (e) of the provision to sub-section (1) of section 14 and in view of the death of the tenant which is already a calamity befalling the legal representatives I pass the following order in this appeal:-

The appeal is dismissed but the landlord respondent shall not evict the legal representatives of the deceased tenant for a period of six months from today. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred.

6. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //