PHUL RANI & ORS. versus NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 14-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
J1 
G 
H 
PHUL RANI & ORS. 
v. 
NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA 
March 14, 1973 
[J. M. SHELAT ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
679 
Delhi Rent Control Act-S. 14(1)(e)-Whether on the death of the 
plaintiff during pendency of-an ejectment application, the cause of acdon 
would survive to hi.9 legal representatives. 
The plaintiff after two notice• to quit, filed an ejectment application 
against the defenda:nt under S. 14(l)(e) of the 
Delhi 
Rent 
Control 
Act 1958. The possession was sought on the ground of personal re-
quirement, 
The _Additional Rent Controller, dismissed tbiet application 
on a preliminary ground of invalid notice. 
During the p<llldency of an 
appeal against that decision, the plaintiff died. Appellants 1 to 4 who 
are 
widow, 
son 
and 
two 
married 
daughters 
of 
the 
Qeceased, 
applied 
for being 
brought 
on 
the .record 
of 
the 
appeal 
as 
his 
legal 
representatives. The 
def<ittdant 
opposed 
that application 
on the ground that . the son and daughter of a deceased daughter of 
the plaintiff ought also to have been impleaded to the application, and 
since that was not done, the appeal had. abated. The Rent Control 
Tribunal allowed these two persons also to be impleded as appellants 
and remanded the ejectment application fo_r a decis'ion on merits. These 
heirs are now appellants 5 and 6. The second appeal filed 
by 
Ibo 
tenant against the ·order of remand was dismissed by the High Court. 
As the order of remand passed by the Rent CoJttrol Tribunal wu 
not stayed. during the pendency of the second appeal, 
the Additional 
Rent COJDtroller proceeded .with t)le ejectment application and paaaed . 
;an ·order of eviction against the tenant. 
The tenant appealed against 
that deciskln and contended for the first time that the right to sue did 
·not survive to the heirs of the plaintiff. The Rent Control Triblpl 
Tejected the contention and confirmed the . drder of eviction on merits. 
ln an appeal, the High Court took the view that the right to sue did 
not survive IO the heirs of the plain(df and on that ¥rouind dismissed 
the ejectment applicati0n. The correctness of that decision is challeng·· 
ed by the plaintiff's heirs before this Court. The question for decision 
was whether the cause of action could survive to his legal represcnta· 
tives. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) In some cases '*'<Jer the rent Acts, the lllQJ(im actio 
personali! moritur cum persona bas been attempted to be applied on the 
death of a necessary party to a suit or proceeding. This 
oft-quoted 
maxim, however, is generally misunderstood. The plain. meaning 
of 
that common law 111axim is that a penonal action dies with the parties 
to the cause of action. Ito the preaent ca..,, it is obvious that the death 
of the plaintiff will not cause the ejectment ptoc•edings to abate if 
the right to sue survives. That is the formula contained in Order 22, 
Rule 1 of the. Code of Civil Procedure. [681F·O, 6820] 
· 
However, from the pleadings in the 
ejectment 
application, 
the 
pl•intllf has founded his right to relief on hD personal requireme,t>t. 
So, if the appellants were pennitted to continue the proceedings, the 
114 will assume a complexion wholly ·beyond the compass of the original 
cause of action, and without a fundamental alteration of the pleadings,· 
the appellanta would not be able to continue the proceedings. There· 
fore, the appeal must fail. 
[683CJ 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 s.c.R. 
Moiilal Pannalal v. Kai/ash Narain, A.LR. 1960 M.P. 134; Amar 
Nath Bihari v. Jai Dayc.I Puri 1971 (7) Delhi Law .'.fimes 363; S1J1t. Dhan 
Devi and Anr. v. Bakshi Ram and Anr., A.LR. 1969 Punjab & Haryana 
270; Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh.& Ors. [1968] 40 Delhi Law Times 392; 
Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rehamin Khan & Ors., [1947] 2 M.L.J. 
419; ond Rameswar Dayal & Ans. v. Sohankil & Anr., [1963] A.L.J. 
198, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1879 of 
1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 
May 24, 1971 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in S.A. No. 
178 0f 1970. 
B 
Bishan Narain and .0. N. Mahindroo for the appellant. 
C 
P. N. Lekhi and M. K. Garg, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J.-The plaintiff, who in a Rent-Act applic~-
tion against his tenant sought possession of certain premises on 
D 
the ground of personal requirement, died pending the application. 
The question for decision is whether the cause of actio

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