9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge, Delhi confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the accommodation at the disposal of the respondent was insufficient, but he thought that the needs of the respondent would be met adequately if he were given possession of the two rooms on the second floor only. Feeling however that there was no provision 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 confirmed the decree of the Trial Court. The Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi upheld that judgment on 6-2-1962 in Civil Regn. No. 609-D of 1960 on the ground that the landlord required the entire premises for his personal use and occupation. 2. Since the suit property is situated in a slum area, the respondent filed an application under Section 19(2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, for permission of the competent authority to . execute the decree for possession obtained by him against Lal Chand and others. The competent authority after taking into account the factors mentioned in Section 19(4) of that Act, passed an Order permitting the respondent to execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, the cause of action did not survive to his legal representatives to continue the appeal and that therefore there was no one who could legitimately prosecute that appeal. The learned Judge, accordingly, confirmed the Judgment of the first appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal. This appeal by special leave is filed by the legal representatives of Lal Chand as also Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram. 7. In taking the view that the legal representatives of Lal Chand had no right to continue the appeal after Lal Chand's death, the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalvanji Pedhi [1964]4SCR892 . It was held in that case that on the determination of the contractual tenancy the tenant becomes a statutory tenant having no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him and that the right of the statutory ten ant to remain in possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy being personal to him is not capable of being transferred or assigned and cannot devolve on his death on his heirs or legal representatives. While relying on this decision, the High Court over looked an important consideration. The suit out of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Court as well as the High Court ought to have applied the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 4, CPC, under which where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a nut, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs on to all the defendants, any one of the plain tiffs 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. In the earlier suit for eviction filed by the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, Lal Chand and his alleged subtenants were all impleaded to the suit as defendants. The decree for eviction was eventually passed in that suit in favour of the respondent and against the defendants jointly. All of these defendants contested the proceeding before the competent authority under the Slum Clearance Act and they succeeded in obtaining an Order therein that it was not open to the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the premises on the ground floor. In Order to overcome the effect of that Order respondent brought the present suit and in the very nature of things he had to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought by the respondent was not maintain able in view of the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act and that the respondent was stopped from bringing the suit since he had already obtained possession of the two rooms on the second floor in pursuance of the permission granted by the competent authority. The first two of these contentions have to be answered in the light of the relevant provisions of the Slum Clearance Act to which we must now turn. 12. Section 19(1) of the Slum Clearance Act reads thus: Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, (a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or Order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or (b) where any decree or Order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a ten ant from any building or land in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to proceedings under the Slum Clearance Act, or, in other words, whether the word 'tenant' which occurs in Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Slum Clearance Act bears the same meaning which it has under the Delhi Rent Control Act. 14. Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act furnishes intrinsic evidence to show that the definition of the word 'tenant' as contain ed in the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be extended for construing its provisions. By Clause (b) of Section 19(1) no person can, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, execute any decree or Order obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before the amending Act of 1964 for the eviction of a tenant from any build- tag or land in a slum area, Sub-section (2) of Section 19 provides that a person desiring to obtain permission of the competent authority shall make an application in the prescribed form. By Sub-section (4), the competent authority is required to take into account certain factors white granting or refusing to grant the permission asked for. The first of such factors which is mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) is whether alternative accommodation wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am v. Ram Chander Khibru AIR1972Delhi34 has taken the same view, namely, that the word 'tenant' in Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act includes a person against whom a decree or Order of eviction has been passed. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied very strongly on a decision of this Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Kauran Devi [1966]2SCR544 in support of his submission that the word 'tenant' must bear the same meaning in the Slum Clearance Act as in the Delhi Rent Control Act. ,We are unable to appreciate how the judgment in that case supports the contention of the respondent. All that was decided therein was that a person against whom an Order for eviction is passed cannot be a tenant within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that the definition of the word 'tenant' as contained in that Act would not be affected by anything contained in Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act The question which arose in that case was whether Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit in relation to any premises to which that Act applied, for eviction of a 'tenant' there from. Not only that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Only on more aspect of the mattes needs to be adverted to. The respondent after obtaining a decree for eviction against Lal Chand and his alleged sub-tenants applied for permission of the competent authority to execute that decree. Permission was granted to him to execute the decree in respect only of the two rooms on the second floor and in pursuance of that permission he obtained possession of those two rooms. We are unable to understand how after working out his remedy under the Delhi Rent Control Act as modified by the Slum Clearance Act, it is competent to the respondent to bring a fresh suit for evicting the appellants from the premises on the ground floor. The authorities under the Slum Clearance Act who are exclusively invested with the power to determine whether a decree for eviction should be permitted to be executed and, if so, to what extent, had finally decided that question, refusing to allow the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the ground floor premises .By the present suit, the respondent is once again asking for the relief which was included in the larger relief sought by him in the application filed under the Slum Clearance Act and which was exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
