1973 (3) TMI 142 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Survival of cause of action after the death of the plaintiff.
2. Validity of notices to quit.
3. Right to sue by legal representatives.
4. Interpretation of personal requirement under the Rent Act.
5. Applicability of common law maxim "Actio personalis moritur cum persona."
6. Relevance of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act.
7. Amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC.
8. Distinction between different categories of cases involving death of the plaintiff or defendant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Survival of Cause of Action After the Death of the Plaintiff:
The primary issue was whether the cause of action for possession of premises on the ground of personal requirement survives to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The judgment emphasized that the survival of the right to sue depends on the nature of the claim and the facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The court held that the personal requirement of the plaintiff does not survive to his legal representatives, as it fundamentally changes the nature of the original cause of action.

2. Validity of Notices to Quit:
The Additional Rent Controller initially dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that the notices to quit were not valid. This decision was later set aside by the Rent Control Tribunal, which remanded the case for a decision on merits. However, the validity of these notices was not the central issue in the Supreme Court's judgment.

3. Right to Sue by Legal Representatives:
The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff sought to continue the proceedings. The court analyzed whether the right to sue survived to the heirs and concluded that the personal requirement of the plaintiff does not extend to his legal representatives. The court noted that allowing the legal representatives to continue the proceedings would require a fundamental alteration of the pleadings, which is beyond the permissible scope of amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC.

4. Interpretation of Personal Requirement Under the Rent Act:
The court examined the nature of the personal requirement asserted by the plaintiff in the ejectment application. It was held that the requirement for the premises was personal to the plaintiff for his occupation and for the members of his family dependent on him. The court emphasized that such a personal cause of action perishes with the plaintiff.

5. Applicability of Common Law Maxim "Actio personalis moritur cum persona":
The court discussed the common law maxim "Actio personalis moritur cum persona," which means a personal action dies with the parties to the cause of action. The court clarified that this maxim is often misunderstood and does not apply to all cases under the Rent Acts. However, in this case, the personal requirement of the plaintiff was deemed to perish with his death.

6. Relevance of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act:
The court found that Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which allows demands and rights to prosecute or defend actions to survive to the executors or administrators, was not relevant in this case. The court noted that the relief sought by the plaintiff could not be enjoyed by his legal representatives after his death.

7. Amendment of Pleadings Under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC:
The court held that permitting the legal representatives to continue the proceedings would require a fundamental alteration of the pleadings, which is beyond the scope of permissible amendments under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. The court emphasized that the issues to be determined would fundamentally change if the legal representatives were allowed to continue the proceedings.

8. Distinction Between Different Categories of Cases Involving Death of the Plaintiff or Defendant:
The court distinguished the present case from other categories of cases involving the death of the plaintiff or defendant. It noted that cases where the plaintiff died after obtaining a decree for possession, or where the death occurred during execution proceedings, are based on different principles. The court also distinguished cases where the tenant died during the pendency of proceedings, stating that the landlord's right to evict does not end with the tenant's death.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the right to sue for possession on the ground of personal requirement does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed, and no order for costs was made.