1

143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

1.

M/S HARI CHAND BHAGAT RAM & ANR

SATISH CHANDER & ANR

2.

HARSH KUMAR ALIAS ARSH KUMAR

SATISH CHANDER &

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh,

for the

Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner in CR

Mr. K. S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1.

HARKESH MANUJA

By way of this common order, aforementioned two revision

petitions shall stand disposed as they involve common question of law

and fact.

For convenience, the facts are being taken from CR

2007.

By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has b

laid to judgment dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent

Controller, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar

Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for

CR-1997-2017(O&M) and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:

M/S HARI CHAND BHAGAT RAM & ANR

Versus

SATISH CHANDER & ANR

HARSH KUMAR ALIAS ARSH KUMAR

Versus

SATISH CHANDER &ORS.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner in CR-1997-2017.

Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner in CR-2611-2017.

Mr. K. S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

HARKESH MANUJA , J. (ORAL)

By way of this common order, aforementioned two revision

petitions shall stand disposed as they involve common question of law

For convenience, the facts are being taken from CR

By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has b

laid to judgment dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar

B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for

and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-1997-2017(O&M)

Date of Decision: November 17, 2025

........Petitioners

........Respondents

CR-2611-2017(O&M)

........Petitioners

........Respondents

HARKESH MANUJA

2017.

2017.

Mr. K. S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1.

By way of this common order, aforementioned two revision

petitions shall stand disposed as they involve common question of law

For convenience, the facts are being taken from CR-1997-

By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has been

laid to judgment dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby, a petition under

B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for

, 2025

By way of this common order, aforementioned two revision

petitions shall stand disposed as they involve common question of law

-

een

laid to judgment dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent

whereby, a petition under

B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for

2 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

short ‘the Act’), preferred at the instance of respondent No.1 came to be

allowed.

2. Briefly stating, respondent No.1-landlord having claimed

himself to be an NRI owner of the demised premises, sought eviction of

petitioners-tenants from the premises situated opposite Grain Market

Railway Road, Town Banga, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District Shaheed

Bhagat Singh Nagar, on the ground that the same was required for his

own personal use and occupation.

3. Upon notice, the petitioners-tenants sought permission for

leave to contest. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated

08.05.2015, granted leave to contest in favour of the petitioners and,

consequently, in terms thereof, afforded opportunity to file written

statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed

followed by the parties having led their respective evidence.

Subsequently, the learned Rent Controller vide its decision dated

19.12.2016, allowed the eviction petition preferred at the instance of

respondent No.1-landlord, holding him to be one of the co-owners of the

demised premises being NRI and thus, entitled for making an

application under Section 13-B of the Act. Further, the factum of

bonafide need of Respondent No.1 qua the premises in dispute was

also established.

4. Impugning the aforementioned decision, learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that in the present case the claim of respondent

No.1 was never established on record in terms of Section 13-B of the

Act inasmuch as respondent No.1 himself did not step into the witness-

box. He points out that in order to establish his own bona fide

requirement as an NRI, respondent No.1 was mandatorily required to

3 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

appear as a witness in support of his claim made in the eviction petition.

However, instead, one Mr.Rajat Moudgil, son of Davinder Moudgil,

appeared as PW-1 in support of the eviction petition and thus, in the

absence of testimony of respondent No.1, the prayer for seeking

eviction of petitioners in terms of Section 13-B of the Act ought to have

been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that as

a matter of record, during the pendency of the present revision

petition(s), respondent No.1-Landlord has unfortunately expired and

consequently, no cause of action survives in the present revision

petition(s) as the sole ground pleaded by respondent No.1 in petition

under Section 13-B of the Act has been for his own personal need and

not for requirement of any of his dependents or family members. He

thus submits that, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of “Gurdev Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar @ Jit” reported as

“1996(2) RCR (Rent) 122” the eviction petition(s) was liable to be

dismissed. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 thereof are extracted hereunder:-

4. As noticed at the beginning, the first appellant filed after filing the

Special Leave Petition. The application for substitution was allowed.

On the basis of subsequent event, the widow of the deceased first

appellant has stated that after the death of her husband she has

"permanently come back to India and needs the house in question for

her personal residence". In the normal circumstances in view of the

settled position of law that subsequent events have to be taken note of,

we would have allowed the ejectment application accepting the

statement of the second appellant (widow of the first appellant).

However, the second respondent has filed affidavit seriously

challenging the statement of the second appellant by stating as follows:

4 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

"The widow Smt. Surjit Kaur came to India for a few days to perform

the last rites of her deceased husband/petitioner and had gone back

and this opportunity she chose to file the present false affidavits."

Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in

his written submissions has raised the following objection :-

"That even if it is presumed that new facts have been placed on

record, which is very much denied, but by no stretch of imagination, it

has been laid by any Court that new facts can be assumed to be

correct without trial. The LRs or the widow have to prove the new facts

before the trial Court."

It is also objected to on the ground that the LRs and or the widow have

to prove and satisfy in ingredients of law viz. Section 13(3)(a) (b) of the

Punjab Rent Restriction Act.

5. In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice will be met

if the case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to enable the

LRs of the first appellant to establish their claim for ejectment under

present circumstances in the light of the above said provision of law.”

6. It has also been argued that respondent No.1 was merely

one of the co-owners in the property in question and thus, in the

absence of other co-owners having been impleaded as parties to the

proceedings, no order of eviction could have been legally passed in

favour of respondent No.1.

No other argument has been raised on behalf of the

petitioners.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 submits that, from the pleadings and evidence

available on record, the bona fide need of respondent No.1 qua the

demised shop, being an NRI and one of its co-owners, stood duly

established. Learned counsel also points out that PW-1 Rajat Moudgil,

son of Davinder Mougdil happens to be the real nephew of respondent

No.1 and was fully conversant with the necessary information about the

5 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

case set up by respondent No.1 in his eviction petition. Learned counsel

further points out towards the detailed and elaborative affidavit of PW-1

tendered in his evidence highlighting each and every minute detail of

the premises in question as well as the personal requirement of

respondent No.1. He thus emphasized that respondent No.1 could not

be non-suited merely on the ground of his non-appearance in the

witness box. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also submits that

even the unfortunate demise of respondent No.1 during the pendency

of the present revision petition(s) was not sufficient to reject the claim,

as the rights and liabilities of the parties in the eviction petition need to

be determined by the Courts on the basis of the cause of action existing

as on the date of filing of eviction petition. Learned counsel thus

submits that the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper-book(s). I am unable to find substance in the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. In the present case, the eviction petition under Section 13-B

of the Act was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 while claiming himself

to be an NRI; being one of the co-owners of the demised premises and

seeking eviction on the ground of his personal requirement. As per the

records, one Mr. Rajat Moudgil-PW1 appeared in the witness-box in

support of the claim set up in the eviction petition. A perusal of the

affidavit of evidence in affirmative, submitted by Mr. Rajat Moudgil as

PW-1 itself shows that all possible, minute and comprehensive details

have been mentioned therein with respect to the right, ownership and

entitlement of respondent No.1 in respect of the demised premises. The

affidavit elaborates upon the factum of respondent No.1 being an NRI

6 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

having migrated to Canada and also about his ailments besides even

his bona fide need of setting up of his own business of a big

departmental store by demolishing the existing building comprising two

shops and thereafter constructing a new one.

10. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit also ensures that the

necessary requirements of Section 13-B have been duly pleaded

therein on behalf of respondent No.1. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the

said affidavit thus being relevant are reproduced hereunder:-

“1. That petitioner Satish Chander has appointed me as his attorney

vide power of attorney dated 05.08.2015, as such, I am conversant

with the facts of the case and competent to makestatement on behalf

of petitioner and to depose his mind in the court. Copy of power of

attorney is attached with this affidavit and the same is ExP1. I have

also brought the original power of attorney along with me today

(Original shown to the Hon’ble" court and received back).

2. That Late Sh. Boishan Dass son of Lachhman Dass resident of

Banga, Distt. SBS Nagar, grandfather of petitioner was owner of the

building as shown in red colour consisting of two shops on ground floor

and residential portion on the first storey and after death of Sh. Bishan

Dass in the year 1965-66, petitioner, his brother Kailash Chander and

his mother Late Smt. Prem Lata being first class legal heirs of Late Sh.

Des Raj predeceased son of Late Sh. Bishan Dass, inherited the

estate of Bishan Dass including share in the building comprised of two

shops on ground floor and residential portion over first storey

constructed over the area of Khasra No. 1187, alongwith other legal

heirs of deceased Bishan Dass namely Sh. Hari Ram and Sh. Ram

Parkash, other sons of Late Sh. Bishan Dass. Late Sh.Bishan Dass left

behind agricultural land etc and other property which was also inherited

in the manner stated above. Petitioner, his brother Kailash Chander

and his mother Late Smt. Prem Lata started residing in the first storey

portion of the building in question of which shop in dispute shown in

red colour marked 'ABCD', bounded as fully detailed above, is one

part. Smt. Prem Lata died in the year 2005 and her share was also

inherited by petitioner, as well as, Sh. Kailash Chander in the said

building. There was oral family partition between Hari Ram, Ram

7 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

Parkash sons of Bishan Dass son of Lachhman Dass and petitioner,

himself and on behalf of his brother Kailash Chander and mother Smt.

Prem Lata, memo of which was reduced into writing on 31.10.2002,

notarized copy of the said memo of the said family partition dated

31,10,2002 is already on the file and the same is Ex P2. In the oral

family partition regarding which later on memo of partition was reduced

into writing on 31.10.2002, the building in question shown in red and

blue colour consisting of two shops on ground floor and residential

portion on first storey had fallen to the lot of petitioner, his brother

Kailash Chander and his mother Smt. Prem Lata and as such, they

became exclusive owners of the said building of which shop in dispute

is one part. Death certificate of Late Sh. Bishan Dass, Fard Jamabandi

for the year 2007-08 of town Banga and Aksh Shijra are already on the

file. Death certificate is Ex P3, Fard Jamabandi is Ex P4 and Aksh

Shijra is Ex P5. Petitioner alongwith his brother Kailash Chander and

his mother Late Smt. Prem Lata became owners/joint owners firstly in

the year 1965 and then became exclusive owners in the year 2002 and

after the death of Late Smt. Prem Lata in the year 2005, her share in

the building was also inherited by petitioner and his brother Kailash

Chander. Even in the municipal record, the petitioner and his brother

Kailash Chander are recorded as owners of the building of which shop

in dispute is one part and they have been making payment of house

tax from time to time, copy of house tax assessment record, as well as,

order of Regional Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jalandhar exercising the

Powers of Special Executive Magistrate, other reports of Executive

officer, M.C.Banga, regarding annual rental value assessment, are

already on the file and in the said record, M/s Hari Chand Bhagat Ram,

Railway Road, Banga, proprietary firm of Late Sh. Mohan Lal son of

Bhagat Ram is recorded as tenant under petitioner andhis brother.

After the death of Mohan Lal son of Bhagat Ram, Smt. Sheela Rani,

LR No. (1) and Jouti Balli, IR No. (i) being widow and daughter of

deceased became tenants under the petitioner, his brother Kailash

Chander, in the shop shown in red colour marked 'ABCD' in the site

plan and bounded as fully, detailed in the head note of the petition. The

rate of rent is Rs 150/- per month. The site plan of the building of which

shop in dispute is one part was got prepared by petitioner from

Sh.Gurcharan Singh Draftsman, Nawarshahr as per spot and Aksh

Shijra. The site plan is correct as per spot and Aksh Shijra. The site

8 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

plan is Ex P6. Petitioner Satish Chander, his brother Kailash Chander

and his mother Late Smt. Prem Lata immigrated to Canada about more

than 25 years back. Petitioner is NRI specified landlord as defined

under section13-B of East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act and is

entitled to seek summary relief as provided under the law. Petitioner

suffered from malignant tumor of prostate and was operated upon in

Canada. He is not keeping good health in Canada due to severe cold

climate and he returned to India for the purpose of started of his own

business of big departmental store by way of demolishing the existing

building consisting of two shops shown in red and blue colour and

residential portion over first storey and constructing new building

thereon. He has filed similar petition against the tenants of other shop

shown in blue colour which is also part of the same building. Petitioner

bonafidely requires the rented out shop for his own personal need and

occupation in the way started above and undertakes to personally

utilize the same and not to rent, lease out the same to any body and

further undertakes not to sell the same.

3. That the petitioner has not utilized the provisions of Sec. 13-B of

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act concerning any building till

date. He had filed petition/ejectment application No. 7 of 2001 on

26.03.2001, titled as 'Satish Chander vs M/S Hari Chand Bhagat Ram',

concerning this shop in the court of Rent Controller, Nawanshahr but

the said petition was withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 3 read with sec.

151 CPC with permission/leave of the court to file new / afresh petition

on the same cause of action. The Hon'ble court passed order dated*

09.02.2008 permitting the withdrawal of the said petition and imposing

costs of Rs 3,000/- as a condition/pre-condition to institute the present

petition, The costs of Rs 3,000/- has already been deposited by the

order of this Hon'ble Court. Receipt in original dated 05.05.2010 is

already on the file and the same is Ex P6. Certified copy of order dated

09.02.2008 is already on the file and the same is Ex P7. Hence the

present petition was filed. Petitioner has no other building in his

possession nor has he rented out or vacated any such building within

the municipal limits/local limits of town Banga since the

commencement of the said provisions of law. Petitioner undertakes to

take the possession of the shop in question within three months from

the date of order. Petitioner called upon respondents/ its then

proprietors while filing previous petition for eviction to admit his right

9 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

and claim now represented by LRs No (i) and ii) namely Sheela Rani

and Joti Bali respectively but they have refused to admit the claim of

petitioner at Banga in the presence of respectable persons. Cause of

action has arisen to petitioner and against respondents at the time of

filing previous petition which was withdrawn with permission of the

court and now against them few days back from the date of filing the

present petition when the refused to admit the claim of petitioner. The

petitioner has filed the present petition without prejudice to his rights of

arrears of rent from the respondent sin a regular petition as ground of

arrears of rent is not available u/s 13-B of East Punjab urban Rent

Restriction Act. Copy of Assessment Register III, Page 68 of. Municipal

Council, Banga showing is already on the file and the same is Ex

P8.Receipts of payment of house tax numbering three are already on

the file and the same are Exs P9, P10 and P11. Passport of petitioner

Satish Chander is already on the file and the same is Ex P12.”

11. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the deponent-Rajat

Moudgil (PW-1) who happened to be the close relative of respondent

No.1 being his nephew was having complete and comprehensive

knowledge about the entitlement of landlord to file and maintain the

eviction petition under Section 13-B of 1949 Act being NRI. Rajat

Moudgil (PW-1) also gave details about the ailment of respondent No.1

– landlord besides the difficulties faced by him on account of the

extreme cold weather in Canada and also about the resultant need of

the landlord to return to India for the purpose of starting his own

business of Departmental Store by demolishing the existing building of

two shops. Therefore, mere non-appearance of respondent No.1 was

not be treated as fatal to his cause, especially, when no prejudice was

caused to the petitioners; they having cross-examined witness Rajat

Moudgil-PW1 at length yet not able to impeach his testimony. The

power of attorney dated 05.08.2015 executed by respondent No.1 in

favour of PW1-Rajat Moudgil even described their relationship as uncle

10 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

and nephew. Significantly, no questions were ever put to PW-1 namely

Rajat Moudgil in his cross-examination to rebut his relationship with

respondent No.1. The petitioners-tenants did not step into the witness-

box; one Sh. Arun Kumar appeared on their behalf as RW-1 who did not

even dispute or question the relationship of Mr. Rajat Moudgil with

respondent No.1 as that of nephew and uncle.

11.1 The power of attorney holder namely, Rajat Moudgil while

appearing as PW-1 also deposed that after filing of eviction petition,

respondent No.1-landlord visited India twice; firstly in the year 2011 and

thereafter in January 2014. In such circumstances, it could never be

inferred that respondent No.1-landlord was disinterested in pursuing the

eviction petition against the petitioners-tenants, particularly when he

visited India even during pendency of the eviction proceedings.

12. In such circumstances, the plea raised on behalf of

petitioners with respect to non-appearance of respondent No.1 in the

witness-box in support of his claim in the eviction petition preferred

under Section 13-B of the Act needs to be rejected in the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand. Support can also be drawn from the

decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. versus Hajarimal Dhokalchand

Chandak reported as 1999(6) SCC 540. Relevant paragraph thereof is

extracted hereunder:-

“9. We have already noted above that the ground

of bonafide requirement of the landlady was accepted by the trial court

but it was negatived by the Appellate Court and the same was

confirmed by the High Court. The Appellate Court was swayed away by

the fact that the landlady herself did not come into the witness box to

support her claim. What is not appreciated by the Appellate Court is

11 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

that her son Bhikchand who was also her G.P.A. holder and for whose

benefit the business is to be set up, did come into the witness box to

support the case of personal requirement. The Appellate Court was of

the view that the bonafide requirement is in the first place a state of

mind and might be something more and that could be established only

by the landlady. In all fairness to Mr. Mohta, we must note, that he

conceded that reasoning of the Appellate Court could not be

supported.”

Similar view has been expressed by this Court in case of

M/s. Hind Sons Agency v. Jai Parkash Jain reported as 2012(1)

RCR(Civil) 828 wherein an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of

1949 Act been preferred by the landlord through his father-in-law being

Power of attorney was held to be maintainable. Relevant paragraphs

No. 11 and 12 of this judgment being relevant are extracted hereunder:-

“11. Similarly in Anita Sood and Ors. v. Manjit Singh, 2011 (2) RCR

(Civil) 741, this Court after relying upon Baldev Singh Bajwa's case

(supra) held that mother as power of attorney was having such a

relation that it cannot be said that she would not be knowing the

personal needs of the respondent and in her capacity as power of

attorney ejectment for bona fide requirement of her son was

maintainable.

12. It may also be noticed at this stage that the attorney in the instant

case is the father-in-law of the respondent-landlord and thus, it cannot

be said that he is not in the knowledge of the personal facts which are

necessary for disposal of this petition.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is without any merit and

the same is dismissed.”

Further reliance can also be placed in case of Gurmeet

Singh v. M/s Walia Brothers reported as 2010 (58) RCR(Civil) 581.

Relevant paragraph No. 17 of this decision being relevant is extracted

hereunder:-

“17. I am in agreement with the proposition of law laid down in the

afore- quoted judgments from where it is evident that ordinarily the

testimony of power of attorney holder in substitution to that of the

12 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

actual litigant may not be sufficient and non-examination of the latter

and his not being cross-examined by the other side, may lead to an

adverse inference against his case, but, in my view, at the same time,

the Court before deducing such inference, is not precluded from

searching for other material that may be available on record to justify

such inference and if attending material and evidence belies it, then

mere non-examination of a litigant or absence of his cross-

examination, would not be fatal to his case.”

13. Further, in the given facts, it has been admitted by learned

counsel representing both the sides that respondent No.1 unfortunately

died in the year 2024 i.e. during pendency of the present revision

petition. However, the said fact cannot by itself, constitute as sufficient

ground to dismiss the eviction petition preferred at the instance of

respondent No.1. Factually, the eviction petition under Section 13-B of

the Act was preferred at the instance of respondent No.1 before the

learned Rent Controller at SBS Nagar on 15.06.2010, pleading his bona

fide need qua the demised premises. The leave to contest was granted

in favour of petitioners-tenants on 08.05.2015. Thereafter, the said

petition was decided on merits and an order of eviction was passed

against the petitioners-tenants on 19.12.2017. Aggrieved thereof, the

present revision petition came to be preferred at the instance of

petitioners-tenants. Notice of motion in the present revision petition was

issued by this Court on 20.03.2017 along with an interim order passed

in favour of petitioners-tenants. Though on 07.08.2023, the present

revision petition was heard in detail by this Court and the judgment was

reserved, however, thereafter, the same was again listed for re-hearing

on 13.12.2023 and the matter since then could not be taken up on

merits by this Court whereas, in the meanwhile, respondent No.1

unfortunately died in the year 2024.

13 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

14. The fundamental principle is that the rights of the parties

should be determined based on the date the suit or proceedings were

initiated. The suit should be tried on the cause of action that existed at

the beginning. This case involves a petition that has been pending

before this Court for almost 8 years, during which the landlord passed

away. Therefore, any delay in disposing of the petition should not

prejudice the landlord’s rights under the decree passed by Rent

Controller. This is because the well-known principle states that a court’s

action should not prejudice the plaintiff. Given these circumstances, the

subsequent event of the landlord’s unfortunate demise during the long

pendency of the revision petition cannot be considered fatal to the

landlord’s cause, causing serious prejudice to his rights. Furthermore,

the rights of the petitioners-tenants are even otherwise protected under

the statutory Scheme of Section 13-B of the Act. If the legal heirs of the

deceased landlord do not occupy the premises in question, the

petitioners-tenants were entitled to seek its repossession. Support in

this regard can be drawn from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Shakuntla Bai and others vs Narayan Das and

others reported as (2004) 5 SCC 772 Relevant paragraphs number 10

& 11 of that decision are reproduced here under:-

“10. The effect of death of a landlord during the pendency of the

proceedings has been considered in several decisions of this Court.

In Smt. Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, 1973 RCR (Rent) 364

(SC) , the landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 14(1)(e)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act and eviction of the tenant was sought on

the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff "for

occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family". The

Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on a preliminary

ground that the notices to quit were not valid, without examining the

14 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

case on merits. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal

preferred by him and his heirs were substituted. The case was

remanded and the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction. In

appeal a contention was raised that the right to sue did not survive to

the heirs of the plaintiff, which was rejected by the Rent Control

Tribunal but was accepted in appeal by the High Court. This court held

that different result may follow according to the stage at which the

death occurs. One of the situations considered in para 13 of the reports

is as under:

"(i) cases in which the death of the plaintiff occurred after a decree for

possession was passed in his favour, say, during the pendency of an

appeal filed by the unsuccessful tenant."

With regard to this category of cases, it was held that the estate is

entitled to the benefit which, under a decree, has accrued in favour of

the plaintiff and, therefore, the legal representatives are entitled to

defend further proceedings, like an appeal, which constitute a

challenge to that benefit. Even otherwise this appears to be quite

logical. In normal circumstances after passing of the decree by the trial

Court, the original landlord would have got possession of the premises.

But if he does not and the tenant continues to remain in occupation of

the premises it can only be on account of the stay order passed by the

appellate Court. In such a situation, the well known maxim 'actus

curiae neminemgravabit' that 'an act of the Court shall prejudice no

man' shall come into operation. Therefore, the heirs of the landlord will

be fully entitled to defend the appeal preferred by the tenant and claim

possession of the premises on the cause of action which had been

originally pleaded and on the basis whereof the lower Court had

decided the matter and had passed the decree for eviction. However in

regard to the case before the court it was held that the requirement

pleaded in the ejectment application on which the plaintiff founded his

right to relief was his personal requirement and such a personal cause

of action must perish with the plaintiff. On this ground it was held that

the plaintiff's right to sue will not survive to his heirs and they cannot

take the benefit of the benefit of the original right to sue.

11. In Shantilal Thakordas v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, 1976(4)

SCC 417, a larger Bench overruled the decision rendered in Phool

Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia (supra) in so far it held that the

requirement of the occupation of the members of the family of the

15 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

original landlord was his personal requirement and ceased to be the

requirement of the members of his family on his death. The court took

the view that 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 occupation of the other members of

the family. Thus, this decision held that the substituted heirs of the

deceased landlord were entitled to maintain the suit for eviction of the

tenant. The ratio of this decision by larger Bench does not in any

manner affect the view expressed in Phool Rani (supra) that where the

death of the landlord occurs after a decree for possession has been

passed in his favour, his legal representatives are entitled to defend

further proceedings like an appeal and the benefit accrued to them

under the decree. In fact, the ratio of Shantilal Thakordas (supra)

would reinforce the aforesaid view. There are several decisions of this

Court on the same line. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001(1)

RCR (Rent) 221 (SC) : 2001(2) SCC 604 it was held that the crucial

date for deciding as to the bonafides of requirement of landlord is the

date of his application for eviction. Here the landlord had instituted

eviction proceedings for the bonafide requirement of his son who

wanted to start a clinic. The litigation continued for a long period and

during this period the son joined Provincial Medical Service and was

posted at different places. The subsequent event i.e. the joining of the

service by the son was not taken into consideration on the ground that

the crucial date was the date of filing of the eviction petition. Similar

view has been taken in G.C. Kapoor v. and Kumar Bhasin, 2002(1)

RCR (Rent) 407 (SC) : 2002(1) SCC 610. Therefore, the legal position

is well settled that the bonafide need of the landlord has to be

examined as on the date of institution of proceedings and if a decree

for eviction is passed, the death of the landlord during the pendency of

the appeal preferred by the tenant will make no difference as his heirs

are fully entitled to defend the estate.”

15. With respect to the plea raised on behalf of petitioners-

tenants as regards the non-impleadment of other co-owners of

respondent No.1 in the eviction petition, it may be noticed here that

respondent No.1 being one of the co-owners was well within his right to

seek eviction of the demised premises being an NRI in terms of Section

16 CR-1997-2017(O&M) and CR-2611-2017(O&M)

13-B of the Act. Further, none of the other co-owners of the demised

premises ever came forward to raise any kind of objection to the filing of

the eviction petition at the instance of respondent No.1 under Section

13-B of the Act nor any evidence to support such objection was even

produced on record by the petitioners-tenants thus, in such

circumstances, mere fact that the other co-owners of respondent Nos.1

in the demised premises were not impleaded as party to the eviction

petition, the same was not to be dismissed being not maintainable.

16. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding

no merits in both the revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.

17.11.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA)

Tejwinder JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No