Case: Shantilal Thakordas &amp; Ors Vs. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala

Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed an appeal but died during its pendency. His widow, son and two married daughters and two children of a deceased daughter were allowed to be substituted by the Rent Control Tribunal where the appeal was pending. The case was remanded by the Tribunal and after remand the Additional Rent Controller held that so me of the substituted persons require the premises bona-fide for their occupation. The tenants appeal to the Tribunal failed. The High Court of Delhi on a further appeal by the tenant took the view that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs of the plaintiff and on that ground it dismissed the ejectment application. The case came up to this Court. The view of the High Court was affirmed. The relevant words of personal requirement of the premises in section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Act are:"for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family." The original plaintiff had pleaded:"The premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family and that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."This Court took the view:"Thus, the requirement pleaded in the ejectment application and on which the plaintiff has rounded his right to relief is his requirement , or to use an expression which will effectively bring out the real point, his personal requirement. If the ejectment application succeeds--we will forget for a moment that the plaintiff is dead the premises in the possession of the tenant may come to be occupied by the plaintiff and the members of his family but that does not make the requirement pleaded in the application any the less a personal requirement of the plaintiff. That the members of his family must reside with him is his requirement, not theirs. Such a personal cause of action must perish with the plaintiff."4. In our considered opinion in face of the wordings of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Act, the view expressed in Phul Ranis case, as stated above, is no t correct. If the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family", then the requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to take the view that the requirement Of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. After the death of the original landlord the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of the other members of the family. Many of the substituted heirs of the deceased landlord were undoubtedly the members of his family and the two married daughters and the children of a deceased daughter in the circumstances could not be held to be not members of the family of the deceased landlord.But even so the appellants cannot succeed in this appeal. Firstly it is doubtful whether the requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation by the partnership firm in which he is a partner will be tantamount to "occupation by himself" i.e. by the landlord. Certain decisions of some High Courts were brought to our notice taking the view that it is so. We refrain from expressing our opinion in that regard. We assume, as seems to have been the view of the High Court in this case, that the requirement of the premises for the use of a partnership firm by the landlord in which he is a partner is covered by section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Act. Yet on the facts of this case there is an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the appellants. From the judgment dated March 31, 1970 of the First Appellate Court it would appear that on the death of Thakordas in June, 1965 a new partnership was constituted. One of his sons Shantilal who was a partner from before was taken as a partner in the new partnership along with Thakordass another son Dhanvantlal Thakordas, appellant No. 2. There were some outsider partners. Harish Thakordas, appellant No. 3, a minor son of Thakordas had not been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He had, therefore, no interest in the partnership firm Jai Hind Silk Weaving Works. The Appellate Court took the view that the .substituted plaintiffs wanted to use the suit premises for , the purpose of godown for keeping the yarn clothes and machinery articles and also for a retail shop and show room of the partnership. This in no sense could be the requirement of appellant Harish even assuming that it could be said to be the requirement of his two cider brothers appellants 1 and 2. In that view of the matter we have got to dismiss the appeal although Mr. Dholakia, learned counsel for the appellants succeeded in persuading us to differ from the ratio of Phul Ranis case.Counsel for the appellants endeavoured to bring their case within one of the exceptions noted in Phul Ranis case. He submitted that a decree had already been passed in favour of the original plaintiff by the Trial Court and that could not be disturbed on his death either in appeal or revision. We do not accept the contention as sound or correct. In Phul Ranis case no final opinion was expressed on this question. Moreover, we find that on the earlier occasion the High Court had set aside the decree and remanded the suit to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision. There was, therefore, no decree in existence to attract the exception.5.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our considered opinion in face of the wordings of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Act, the view expressed in Phul Ranis case, as stated above, is no t correct. If the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family",  then the requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to take the view that the requirement Of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. After the death of the original landlord the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of the other members of the family. Many of the substituted heirs of the deceased landlord were undoubtedly the members of his family and the two married daughters and the children of a deceased daughter in the circumstances could not be held to be not members of the family of the deceased landlord.But even so the appellants cannot succeed in this appeal. Firstly it is doubtful whether the requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation by the partnership firm in which he is a partner will be tantamount to "occupation by himself" i.e. by the landlord. Certain decisions of some High Courts were brought to our notice taking the view that it is so. We refrain from expressing our opinion in that regard. We assume, as seems to have been the view of the High Court in this case, that the requirement of the premises for the use of a partnership firm by the landlord in which he is a partner is covered by section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Act. Yet on the facts of this case there is an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the appellants. From the judgment dated March 31, 1970 of the First Appellate Court it would appear that on the death of Thakordas in June, 1965 a new partnership was constituted. One of his sons Shantilal who was a partner from before was taken as a partner in the new partnership along with Thakordass another son Dhanvantlal Thakordas, appellant No. 2. There were some outsider partners. Harish Thakordas, appellant No. 3, a minor son of Thakordas had not been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He had, therefore, no interest in the partnership firm Jai Hind Silk Weaving Works. The Appellate Court took the view that the .substituted plaintiffs wanted to use the suit premises for , the purpose of godown for keeping the yarn clothes and machinery articles and also for a retail shop and show room of the partnership. This in no sense could be the requirement of appellant Harish even assuming that it could be said to be the requirement of his two cider brothers appellants 1 and 2. In that view of the matter we have got to dismiss the appeal although Mr. Dholakia, learned counsel for the appellants succeeded in persuading us to differ from the ratio of Phul Ranis case.Counsel for the appellants endeavoured to bring their case within one of the exceptions noted in Phul Ranis case. He submitted that a decree had already been passed in favour of the original plaintiff by the Trial Court and that could not be disturbed on his death either in appeal or revision. We do not accept the contention as sound or correct. In Phul Ranis case no final opinion was expressed on this question. Moreover, we find that on the earlier occasion the High Court had set aside the decree and remanded the suit to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision. There was, therefore, no decree in existence to attract the exception.