Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.12 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 306 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Dhan Devi And Anr. vs Bakhshi Ram And Anr. on 24 May, 1968
In Smt.Dhan Devi and Anr. v. Bakhshi Ram and Anr.(3) an
application for ejectment was filed by the landlord under
the
(1) A.I.R. 1960 M.P. 134.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Sarat Chandra Banerjee vs Nani Mohan Banerjee on 17 May, 1909
Though the plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal,
it is as if he died during the pendency of the suit because
the suit was dismissed on a preliminary issue concerning the
validity of the notices to quit and was remanded in appeal
for trial on the merits. It is patent and would be altruism
to say that the death of the plaintiff will not cause the
ejectment proceedings to abate if the right to sue survives.
That is the formula contained in Order 22 Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, a formula simple in its wording but not
simple in its application. The "right to sue" as said
succinctly in Saraj Chandra v. Nani Mihan(1) means 'the
right to bring a suit asserting a right to the same relief
which the deceased plaintiff asserted at the time of his
death". Thus contracts involving the exercise of special
skill like a promise to paint a picture do not bind the the
representatives of the promisor nor do they create in them a
right that can survive the death of the promisor.
The solution to the problem whether the 'appellants can con-
tinue the proceedings in their capacity as the legal
representatives of the plaintiff lies in the pleadings of
the plaintiff for those alone can reveal the true nature of
the right asserted to the plaintiff in the ejectment
proceedings. In column 18(a) of the ejectment application
the ground for evicting the tenant is stated thus
"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 reasonable suitable
residential accommodation."
Amar Nath Bahri vs Jai Dayal Puri on 23 July, 1971
In Amar Nath Bihari v. Jai Dayal Puri(2) the death
of the landlord occurred after the Rent Control Tribunal had
held in appeal, reversing (the judgment of the Controller,
that the premises were required by the landlord for the use
of himself and his wife under section 14 (1) (e) of the Act.
It was held that the wife was a member ,of the landlord's
family and as "the need of the landlord for the premises was
assessed to be both for himself and his wife", the cause of
action consisted of the need of both and therefore it sur-
vived to the widow. The judgment of the High Court in the
instant case was cited before the learned single Judge but
was distinguished by him on the ground that the requirements
of the legal representatives here were not determined by the
Controller, prior to the death of the plaintiff. The point
of distinction could be that the decree for possession
passed in favour of the landlord could be defended by his
legal representatives for the benefit of his estate.