Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an ejectment application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by a landlord against his tenant for possession of a residential flat in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The landlord claimed bona fide personal requirement for himself and members of his family, stating that he had a large family consisting of his wife, son, daughter-in-law, and three minor grand-daughters, and that the family had only two rooms, which were inadequate. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that the notices to quit were invalid. The landlord appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, but died on August 22, 1968, during the pendency of the appeal. His widow, son, and two married daughters applied to be brought on record as legal representatives. The tenant opposed the application on the ground that the children of a deceased daughter were not impleaded, which led the Rent Control Tribunal to allow those two persons also to be impleaded, making them appellants 5 and 6. The Tribunal then set aside the dismissal and remanded the ejectment application for decision on merits. The tenant's second appeal against the remand was dismissed by the High Court on February 20, 1970. Meanwhile, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded with the ejectment application and passed an eviction order on February 14, 1969, holding that the landlord's widow, son, son's wife, and three minor daughters required the premises bona fide. The tenant appealed, and for the first time contended that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs of the deceased landlord. The Rent Control Tribunal rejected this contention and confirmed the eviction order. In a further appeal, the Delhi High Court accepted the tenant's argument, holding that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs and dismissed the ejectment application, leaving it open to the heirs to file a fresh proceeding based on their own requirements. The legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona and the provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It observed that the right to sue means the right to bring a suit asserting the same relief which the deceased plaintiff asserted at the time of his death. The Court found that the pleadings in the ejectment application clearly founded the relief on the personal requirement of the landlord; the requirement that his family members reside with him was his personal requirement, not an independent requirement of the family. The Court held that such a personal cause of action must perish with the plaintiff. Permitting the legal representatives to continue would require a fundamental alteration of the pleadings and would shift the issues to the heirs' own requirements, which would be beyond the scope of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision that the right to sue did not survive, resulting in abatement of the ejectment application. The heirs were left free to institute fresh proceedings based on their own requirements.
Headnote
A) Delhi Rent Control - Eviction on Personal Requirement - Survival of Cause of Action - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - Ejectment application by landlord for bona fide personal requirement for himself and family; landlord died during pendency of appeal; legal representatives sought to continue. Held that the right to sue did not survive because the requirement pleaded was personal to the deceased landlord; permitting legal representatives to continue would alter the lis beyond the original cause of action and require fundamental alteration of pleadings beyond Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. (Pages 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Substitution and Abatement - Right to Sue - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 22 Rule 1 - The right to sue means the right to bring a suit asserting the same relief which the deceased plaintiff asserted at the time of his death; personal actions die with the person per maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona; legal representatives could not continue because the cause of action was personal and would require determination of wholly different issues. (Pages 3-5) C) Interpretation - Landlord's Personal Requirement Includes Dependents - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - The landlord's requirement that family members dependent on him reside with him is a personal requirement of the landlord, not an independent requirement of the family; upon landlord's death, the issues would shift to heirs' own requirements, making continuation impermissible. (Pages 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cause of action in an ejectment application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 based on the landlord's personal requirement survives to his legal representatives upon the landlord's death during pendency of proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's view that the right to sue did not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. The ejectment application was dismissed as abated, leaving it open to the heirs to bring a fresh proceeding founded on their own requirements.
Law Points
- Right to sue survives only if legal representatives can assert the same relief as deceased plaintiff
- Personal cause of action dies with the person (actio personalis moritur cum persona)
- Order 22 Rule 1 CPC governs survival of right to sue
- Ejectment under Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act is personal to landlord
- Amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot fundamentally alter cause of action
- Legal representatives cannot continue personal requirement eviction after landlord's death
