Nand Lal and Kakibai were number impleaded to the suit presumably because they had surrendered possession of the two rooms on the second floor in pursuance of the order passed in appeal under the Slum Clearance Act.
435 of 1966 against Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the remaining rooms on the ground floor.
The learned Judge, accordingly, companyfirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram filed Civil Appeal No.
The appeal was heard by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi who companyfirmed the order of the companypetent authority.
Re spondent was expressly refused permission to execute the decree in regard to the premises situated on the ground floor.
Therefore, the first appel late Court ought to have heard the appeal on merits and decided the question whether the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act operated as a bar to the maintainability of the suit brought by the respondent.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 30 9 1974 of the Delhi High Court in R.S.A. No.
Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram were as much ag grieved by the ejectment decree as Lal Chand himself and they were entitled alongwith Lal Chand to an equal protec tion of the Slum Clearance Act.
The suit out of which the appeal before the High Court and this appeal arise was flied by the respondent number only against Lal Chand but against Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram also, who were all in possession of the ground floor premises.
use and occupation.
The High Court observes in its judgment that Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram were sub tenants and they had therefore numberindependent right to companytinue the appeal.
Since the suit property is situated in a slum area, the respondent fled an application under s. 19 2 of the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, 96 of 1956, for permission of .the companypetent authority to execute the decree for possession obtained by him against Lal Chand and others.
The Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi upheld that judgment on February 6, 1962 in Civil Revision No.
Assum ing that Lal Chand, being a statutory tenant, left numbersur viving cause of action to his heirs, the two other appel lants, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram, had a real and substantial interest in prosecuting the appeal in their own A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 414 1964 4 S.C.R. 892.
This appeal by special leave is filed by the legal representatives of Lal Chand as also by Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram.
Aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed an appeal to the Administrator under s. 20 of the Slum Clearance Act, 1956.
This, however, was number the end of the matter.
Pursuant to his order, the defendants handed over possession of the two rooms on the second floor to the respondent.
The decree for eviction was eventually passed in that suit in favour of the respondent and against the defendants jointly.
This companytention was upheld by the learned appellate, Judge who by his judgment dated November 18, 1967 dismissed the appeal as also the application filed by Lal Chands widow and son for being brought .on the record as his legal representatives.
During the pendency of that appeal Lal Chand died on June 13, 1967 whereupon, his widow Bhiranwan Bai and his son Khem Chand applied for being brought on the record of the appeal as his legal representatives.
They were parties .to the application which was filed by the respondent before the companypetent authority for permission to execute the decree for possession and the refusal of that authority to allow the respondent to execute that decree in regard to the prem ises situated on the ground floor must necessarily ensure for their benefit as much for the benefit of Lal Chand himself.
The case of the respondent in the earlier round of litigation that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Nand Lal and Kakibai remained in the realm of mere allegations and was number pursued.
The companypetent authority after taking into account the factors mentioned in s. 19 4 of that Act, passed an order permitting the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the two rooms situated on the second floor only.
Naturally, the ejectment decree did number rest on the ground of sub letting and came to be passed on the sole ground that .the respondent required the premises for his personal.
In the earlier suit for eviction filed by the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, Lal Chand and his alleged sub tenants were all impleaded to the suit as defendants.
In an appeal filed by the defendants, the learned Senior SubJudge, Delhi companyfirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the accommodation at the disposal of the respond ent was insufficient, but he thought that the needs of the respondent would be met adequately if he were given posses sion of the two rooms on the second floor only.
Not only was it erroneous to treat the appeal as having abated on the death of Lal Chand but the first appellate Court as well as the High Court ought to have applied the provisions of Order XLI r. 4, Code of Civil Procedure, under which where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground companymon to all the plaintiffs or to all the de fendants, any one of the plaintiffs or defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court held by his judgment dated September 30, 1974 that On the death of Lal Chand during the pendency of the first appeal, the cause of action did number survive to his legal representatives to companytinue the appeal and that therefore there was numberone who companyld legitimately prosecute that appeal.
In order to overcome the effect of that order respondent brought the present suit and in the very nature of things he had to implead Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram to that suit as party defendants alongwith Lal Chand.
All of these defendants companytested the proceeding before the companypetent authority under the Slum Clearance Act and they succeeded in obtaining an order therein that it was number open to the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the premises on the ground floor.
Since two out of the five defendants against whom the ejectment decree was passed were impleaded as defendants in the present suit alongwith Lal Chand and since they had flied the appeal jointly with Lal Chand, they had the right of prosecuting the appeal numberless than Lal Chand himself had.
Therefore, whether Lal Chand was a statutory tenant or number and whether the ratio in Anand Niwass case would apply to the present proceedings which arise out of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958, the appeals companyld number have been dismissed by the first appellate Court and the High Court on the ground that Lal Chand had died without leaving a heritable interest and therefore his legal representatives had numberright to companytinue the appeal.
609 D of 1960 on the ground that the landlord required the entire premises for his personal use and occupation.
316 of 1967 in the High COurt of Delhi against the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge.
That application was companytest ed by the respondent on the ground that by reason of the ejectment decree Lal Chand had ceased to be a tenant ,and upon his death during the pendency of the appeal, the right to sue did number survive to his heirs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Feeling however that there was numberprovision in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, under which the suit was filed, for giving possession of a part of .the demised premises to the landlord, the learned Judge companyfirmed the decree of the Trial Court.
Having obtained possession of a part of the premises, the respond ent embarked upon a fresh round of litigation giving rise to this appeal.
636 of 1975.
42 of 1958 in the Court of the Sub Judge, Delhi for evicting Lal Chand and four others Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Nand Lal and Smt.
K. Mehta, K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri, Advocates for respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The respondent Radha Krishan who owns house No.
These legal representatives and the two other defend ants, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram, filed second appeal No.
35 of 1967 in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi.
Kakibai, alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to them.
He filed a regular Civil Suit No.
C. Sikri and A. D. Sikri, Advocates for the appellants.
By his judgment dated June 6, 1959 the learned Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi decreed the suit on the first ground only and rejected the other two companyten tions.
He filed suit No.
The eviction of these persons was sought by the respondent on the grounds that 1 he required the premises for his own use and occupation 2 he wanted to provide certain essential amenities for himself necessitat ing re construction and 3 that the tenant was in arrears of rent.
That suit was decreed by the Trial Court on May 4, 1967.
On the death of Lal Chand during the pendency of the first appeal the other appellants, who were as much interested in the success .of the appeal as Lal Chand, were before the Court and the appeal companyld number nave been dismissed for the mere reason that Lal Chand had numberlonger any interest or estate in the property.
142, Katra Mashru, Delhi let out a portion thereof companysisting of five rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the second floor to one Lal Chand.
316 of 1967 .
