JAGDISH CHANDER CHA'ITERJEE & ORS. versus SRI KISHAN & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 09-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

850 
JAGDISH CHANDER CHA'ITERJEE & ORS. 
v. 
SRI KISHAN " ANR. 
A ugu.st 9, 1972 
[A, N. GROVER AND D. G. PALBKAR, JJ.] 
RajaJtha11 Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950-S. 13-
Statutory tenant J.ying--Heir1 whether 'tellQllt,. under A.ct-Whether calf 
claim pro1ectio11 of A.ct. 
A 
• 
Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) filed a suit seeking ejectment from 
his house of !us tenant C on the ground of personal need. Delendant C 
contended that the landlord did not require the premiseo bonafide. 
Tho 
C 
Munsif, Ajmer, decreed the suil In appeal the District Judge held that 
the landtord did not r~quire the premises reasonably and 
bonafide 
and 
11ilow1Dg the appeal, d1s~ssed the swt. 
The landlord filed an appeal in 
the RaJaslhan High Court. During the pendency of the appeal C died and 
thereafter the appeal was contested by bis heirs. The High Court in second 
appeal held (i) that it was not necessary to 10 into the ques.ion of bona-
fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord as that was only a protection 
9 
provided to the statutory tenant personally under s. 13 of the Rajasthan 
Premises (Control and Eviction) Act, 1950; (ii) that the tenancy <if C 
having been duly terminated by notice there was no bar to the passing of 
the decree. 
In appeal by C's legal representatives, to this Collrt, the 
ques.ions that fell for consideration were : (i) whether the High Court 
should have remanded the case for determination o( the question whether 
the contractual tenancy bad been terminated; (ii) whether the protection 
afforded by the 1950 Act to the statutory tenant was personal to such 
i; 
tendnt or was also available to heirs and legal represe1tatives, (iii) 
whether the heirs of the tenant were tenants within the definition of that 
term in s. 3(vii) of the Act, 
DLmissing the appeal. 
HELD : (i) The landlord had alleged in the suit that by a notice dated 
26-6-1972 served upon the tenant, the tenancy had been duly terminated. 
1 
This was not denied in. the written statement nor was an issue demanded 
at the time of the trial. The High Court had a'fter hearing both sides come 
to the conclusion that the oontractual tenancy bad been duly terminated 
by a notice. 
In these circumstances there was no substance in the sul>-
miasion that the High Court ahould ha>-e remanded the case. 
J 852HJ 
(ii) It is now settled that after the termination 
of the contractual" 
tenency the statutory tenant has only a personal right to continue in p0>-
<e5sion till evicted in 11ccordance with the provisions of the Act. The con-
tention based on the ground of bonafide requirement by the landlord was 
personal to the statutory tenant and on his death the same is not open to 
his le1al representatives unless there is anything in the provis'on of the 
Act which makes the legal representath-cs &talutory tenants to the same 
extent as t'te deceased. It was not the case of the appel'ants-in the present 
caae that there was anything in the provisions of the Act which gives ; '11 
protection to·tbe le&al representative of the deceased statutory tenant. 
[853H; 855F] 
A.nnid/yas (Private) Ltd, v. A.nandji Ka/yon# Pedhi .t Or. 
[1964] 4 
S.C.R.. 892, 908 applied. 
A 
B 
c 
J. c. CHATTERJEE v. Sill IJSHAN (Pakkar, J.) 
851 
(iii) The contention that.since the rent in the present case was payable 
by the heirs and it was in fact paid during the pendency of the proceedinall 
Ibey were tenants within the definition could not be accepted. 
Rent was 
however not payable by the legal representatives. 
and if the rent was 
paid by.them during the cpurse of the proceedings it was not because they 
were recognised as tenants by the landlord but becauso the amount was 
RCCived by him, without prejudiec to his rights under the orders of tho 
court. Therefore the heirs and legal rc11resentatives of the deceased C 
could not in their own right .claim to be a 'tenant' within the meaning of 
the Act. The only contentions which they could put forward were \he 
contentions appropriate to their representative character Qlld not one wh1cl! 
was personal to the deceiued. f8SSB-E] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 428(N) 
of 1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 1, 1971 of the High Court at Jodhpur in S. Il. Civil 
Second Appeal No. 390 of 1965. 
Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants. 
D 
Yinoo Bhagat and J. K. Sethi, for respondent No. 1. 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Palekar, J. This a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.