LexLAL CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. versus RADHA KISHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 522 LAL CHAND .(DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. v. RADHA KISHAN December 11, 1976 [Y. v. C!IANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI JJ.J Civil Procedure Code-Sec. 11-Res judicata-Whether exhaustive--Rationale behind Order 41 rule 4 in case of decree involving common grounds whether i one_ of the defendants can appeal-I/ right to sue to other defendant does not iurvive. · - Interpretation of statutes-Polley ·of statute-Advancing remedy-Protection of slum dwellers. . • . · . _ Slum Areas (Impr9ve1nent and Clearance) Act 1956-Sec. 19(1), 19(4), 31A-Whether a suit for evicrion against a tenant in slum area maintainable without prior permission of the authority under the Act-Whether a decree of eviction can be executed without such permissio~Jurisd~ction of Civil Court barred to decide matters which the competent authority is empowered to decide- · . Delhi Rent Control Act 1958-Sec. 2(1)-DefinitiOil in Delhi Rent Control Act whether applicable in Slum Clearance Act. The respondent who owns a house let out S rooms on the ground floor and 2 rooms on the second floor in the said house to one Lal Chand. The respon~ dent filed a suit in the year 1958 in the Court of tlie Sub Judge for evicting Lal Chand, Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Nand Lal and Smt Kakibai alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to four of them. The eviction was sought on the ground of personal requirenieni. reconstruction and arrears of rent. The proceedings ended by the judgment of the High Court which granted a decree Pf eviction in respect of all 7 rooms in favour of the respondent. Since the snit property is situated in a slum area the respondent filed an application under section 19(2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 for perm.is.sion of the competent· authority to eXecute the decree for posset..>Sion 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 execute the decree in respect of the 2 rooms situated on the second floor only. The respondent was expressly refused per4 mission to execute the decree- in regard to the S rooms situate on the ground floor. An appeal filed by the respondent to the Administrator failed. Pursuant to the said order the possession of the 2 rooms on the second floor was handed over to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Regular Suit in the year 1966 against Lal ,Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the remaining S rooms on 'the ground floor. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Nandlal and Kakibai were not impleaded because they had surrendered possession of the twO rooms on the second floor. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court Lal Chand, Kesha Ram and Jhangi Ram filed an appeal. DurinJi the pendency of the said aooeal Lat Chand died whereupon his widow and his son. applied for being brought on record in that appeal as his legal representatives. The AppelTate Court upheld the objection of the respondent that in view of the ejectment decree Lal Chand had ceased iO be a tenant and, therefore, on his death the right to su~ did not survive to his heirs. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Kesho Ram. Jhangi Ram and the leJ?al repre~ sentatives of Lal Chand filed a second apoeal in the Hi.2h Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the ApneUate Court and held that on the death of Lat Chand during the pendencv of the first appeal the cause of action did not survive to his legal representatives and that there was nO one who could legiti- mately prosecute that appeal. r LAL CHAND v. RADHA KISHAN (Chandrachud, J.) 523 Allowing the appeal by Special Leave. HEID : 1. The ~uit out of which the: appeal before the High Court ar06e was filed by the respondent not only against Lal Chand but also against Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram who were all in possession of the ground floor premises. The case of the respondent in the earlier round of litigation that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to Kesho Ram and Jhangf Ram was not pursued. The ejectment decree did not rest on the ground of alleged-subletting. [526C-D] 2. Since the suit was filed against Lal Chand alongwith · Kesho Ram ana Jhangi Ram and since they were as much aggreived by the ejectm.ent decree as Lal Chand himself Mld since they were entitled to equal protecrion ·of the Slum Clearance Act, the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.