178 of 1970 the High Court of Delhi took the view that the right to sue did number survive to the.
The tenant appealed against that decision and companytended for the first time in appeal that the right to sue did number survive to the heirs of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision but during its pendency he died on August 22, 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated May 24, 1971 of the, Delhi High Court at New Delhi in S.A. No.
In an appeal filed by the tenant S.A.0.
As the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Tribunal was number stayed during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded with the ejectment application and had in the meanwhile passed an order of eviction against the tenant.
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 number done, the appeal had abated.
These two heirs are number appellant 5 and 6.
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 his judgment of February 14, 1969 he held that the plaintiffs widow appellant 1 , his son appellant 2 , the sons wife and three.
It was held that the suit companyld be filed against the heirs on the basis of the permission obtained against the tenant.
minor daughters of that companyple required the premises bona fide for their occupation.
The landlords thereafter brought a suit, during the pendency of which the tenant died.
Mohania Died After her 1 1968 4 Delhi Law Times 391.
The landlords brought another suit against the son and widow without obtaining a fresh permission under section 3.
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.
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 eject ment application for a decision on merits.
1 which was a case under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 the landlords obtained permission under section 3 of that Act to bring a suit for ejectment on the ground that the shops in possession of the tenant were in a dilapidated companydition and required reconstruction.
2 1947 2 M.L.J. Sri Sohan Lal and Anr.
Bishan Narain and 0.
The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the appli cation on the preliminary ground that the numberices to quit were number valid.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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 question for decision is whether the cause of action would survive to his legal representatives or whether, as companytended by the tenant, the application must abate.
On June 28, 1962 a flat at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The tenants son and widow were then brought on the record but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the numberice to quit was defective.
N. Mahindroo for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The plaintiff, who in a Rent Act application against his tenant sought possession of certain premises on the ground of personal requirement, died pending the application.
The Rent Control Tribunal rejected that companytention and companyfirmed the order of eviction on merits.
N. Lekhi and M. K. Garg, for the respondent.
1879 of 1971.
Possession was sought from the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family.
On failure of the, defendant to companyply with two numberices to quite plaintiff filed an ejectment application under section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the Act .
178 of 1970.
