MST. SURAYYA BEGUM, ETC versus MOHD. USMAN AND ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 26-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MST. SURAYYA BEGUM, ETC. 
v. 
MOHD. USMAN AND ORS., ETC. 
APRIL 26, 1991 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.) 
Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Section 25/Sections JI, Explanation VI and 47, and Order 1, Rule 
8-Decree for eviction-Execution of-All legal heirs of original 
tenants not impleaded in eviction proceedings-Whether person not 
impleaded entitled to contest execution petition-Principle of represen-
C 
tatfon-Applicability of-Succession to the tenancy of the deceased-
Section 19 of the Hindu. Succession Act, 1956-Scope of. 
The respondents-landlords in the two .appeals obtained decrees of 
eviction against the legal representatives of tbe original tenants of the 
premises in dispute. In execution, the appellants objected, contending 
D 
that since, they were not impleaded as parties in the eviction proceed-
ings, their right to tenancy, which was an independent one, could not be 
• 
~ 
put to an end by permitting the decrees to be executed, and that the 
decrees obtained against otber members of the family would not bind 
them. 
While tbe courts below rejected the objection in one case, in the 
other case the executing court held that in view of the controversy on 
questions of fact involved, the appellant's objection could be fmally 
decided only after the parties were allowed to lead evidence, and hence 
fixed a date for trial of the dispute. However, on appeal by tbe landlord, 
E 
the High Court held tbat the appellant was bound by tbe decree and her 
F 
objection was med with the sole object of delaying tbe execution. Hence, 
the appellant med the appeal, by special leave, contending that since 
she was left out of t!le proceeding, tbe decree was not only not binding 
on her, but it could not be kept alive even against the others. 
On behalf of tbe decree-holders it was contended that when tbe 
G 
tenancy rights devolved on the heirs of a tenant on his death, the inci-
dence of tenancy remained tbe same as earlier enjoyed by the original 
tenant and it has a single tenancy which devolved on them. There was 
no division of the premises or of the rent payable, and the position as 
between the landlord and tenant continued unaltered, and the heirs 
succeeded to the tenancy as joint tenants. 
H 
517 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 1991 and dismissing Civil 
Appeal No. 2057 of 1991, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The principle of representation of the interest of 
a person, not impleaded by name in a judicial proceeding, through a 
named party is not unknown. A Karta of a Joint Hindu Family has 
always been recognised as a representative of the other members of the 
Joint Hindu Family, and so has been a trustee. In cases where the 
provisions of Order I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are 
attracted, a named party in a suit represents the other persons 
interested in the litigation, and likewise a receiver appointed in one case 
represents the interests of the litigating parties in another case against a 
stranger. Similarly, the real owner is entitled to the benefits under a 
decree obtained by his benamidar against a stranger and at the same 
time, is also bound by the decision. Examples can be multiplied. [522B-C] 
1.2 Under Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure, 1908 where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right 
or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all 
persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be 
deemed to claim under the persons so litigating, subject of course, to the 
essential condition that the interest of a person concerned has really 
been represented by the others; in other words, his interest has been looked 
after in a bona fide manner. If there be any clash of interests between the 
person concerned and his assumed representative, or if the latter, due 
to collusion or for any other reason, ma/a fide neglects to defend the 
case, he cannot be considered to be a representative. The issue, when it 
becomes relevant has, therefore, to be answered with reference to the 
facts and circumstances of the individual case. [522D-F] 
F 
1.3 So far as Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is 
concerned, when it directs that the heirs of a Hindu dying intestate shall 
take his property as tenants-in-common, it is dealing with the rights of 
the heirs inter se amongst them, and not with their rela

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