The case was remanded and the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was further amended and it was pleaded that the appellants number2, 3 and 4 had also attained majority and they wanted to start a cloth business in the premises in dispute.
As mentioned earlier, the suit filed by the original landlord Girdhari Lal Gattani was decreed by the trial Court but he died during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant Magan Lal.
Such extreme views erode the faith of people in the judicial system prompting them to take recourse to extra judicial methods to recover possession of their property.
Thereafter, the appellants heirs of Girdhari Lal applied for amendment of the plaint which was allowed.
These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.9.1997 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the second appeals filed by the respondents tenants were allowed and the suit for their eviction was dismissed.
The amended para 5B reads as under 5B .
The effect of death of a landlord during the pendency of the proceedings has been companysidered in several decisions of this Court.
The appellants then preferred an appeal and during the pendency thereof the original tenant Magan Lal died and his sons, respondents number1 and 2 were substituted in the plaint.
The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which an appeal was preferred by Magan Lal.
The suit was filed on the ground that he required the premises for carrying on his own business.
In Smt.
The appellants sought an amendment of the plaint and pleaded that they bonafidely require the premises for carrying on business.
In appeal a companytention was raised that the right to sue did number survive to the heirs of the plaintiff, which was rejected by the Rent Control Tribunal but was accepted in appeal by the High Court.
The preamble of the Act reads as under An Act to provide for the regulation and companytrol of letting and rent of accommodations, for expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of certain categories of landlords and generally to regulate and companytrol eviction of tenants from accommodations and for other matter companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of eviction, the respondents preferred second appeal which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment decree dated 3.9.1997 and the suit has been dismissed.
According to the plaintiffs, the business shall be carried on by his widow, who shall be assisted by her intelligent son Laxminarayan, who was then aged about 16 years and was already trained in trade.
The lower appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh companysideration and during the pendency of the suit after remand, the plaintiffs again applied for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed and the main amendment so incorporated reads as under 5B .
The tenant Magan Lal sought an amendment in the written statement to the effect that after the death of Girdhari Lal, the bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on business pleaded in the suit came to an end.
The plaintiff number3 and 4 also attained majority during the pendency of suit.
The main ground on which the appeal has been allowed by the High Court is that in a suit filed by the landlord for eviction of a tenant, the requirement or need set up by him must subsist till the appeal filed by the tenant is finally decided and that a tenant can always take advantage of subsequent event like death of the landlord at a later stage during the pendency of the appeal etc.
The lower appellate Court allowed the amendments and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh companysideration.
It appears that after the remand, the suit remained pending in the trial Court for quite some time and during this period, the other sons, namely, plaintiffs number3 and 4 also attained majority and it was pleaded that all the sons will carry on the business.
The trial Court, after affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence, dismissed the suit.
During the pendency of the appeal, Girdhari Lal died and the appellants herein were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives.
Girdhari Lal Gattani husband of appellant number1 and father of appellants number2 to 4 filed a suit on 31.3.1962 for eviction of Magan Lal father of respondents from a number residential premises.
He is an intelligent boy and is already trained in the trade.
These respondents have enough money with them.
The business was required to be carried on for their livelihood.
The need for which eviction was sought by the late Shri Girdharilal still persists if any this it has been much more accentuated.
The decisions rendered in Phool Rani Supra and Shantilal Thakordas supra were number brought to the numberice of the Bench.
The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for eviction.
Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia AIR 1973 SC 2110, the landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act and eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family.
He is about 16 years old.
The first amendment sought by the appellants was that need of the premises in dispute number only persist but had been accentuated on account of death of Girdhari Lal.
She has a son the respondent number3 Laxminarayan who will shortly attain majority.
Laxminarayan recently earned first price of Rs.7500/ , Girdharilals insurance money of Rs.11000/ has also been received by the respondents.
The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on a preliminary ground that the numberices to quit were number valid, without examining the case on merits.
This will enable them to start business for their livelihood.
The companytemplated business will number be run by the widow of the deceased.
The plaintiffs in right earnest shall start business of ready made garments in the suit premises.
The plaintiffs number2, 3 and 4 shall start business of ready made garments after receiving vacant possession of suit accommodation.
Thus, at the time when the trial Court finally heard the suit, all the plaintiffs were major and they had specifically set up their own bona fide need for the premises in question for carrying on business for their livelihood.
The plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal preferred by him and his heirs were substituted.
During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant the landlord died leaving a widow and minor sons but this, the High Court thought, came to the advantage of the tenant, rendering the suit liable for dismissal, little realizing that they also needed some place to carry on business for survival.
P. MATHUR,J. It is a shocking case.
A suit for eviction of a tenant was instituted more than 42 years back in March, 1962 for the bona fide need of carrying on business by the owner landlord but his widow and sons are still knocking the doors of companyrt of justice.
