RAJ KUMAR versus RAMESHCHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 01-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAJ KUMAR 
A 
v. 
RAMESHCHAND AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 1, 1999 
(B.N. KIRPAL ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order 32 Rules I and ]~Appointment of guardian-£viction petition 
before Rent Controller--Owner of premises, a person of unsound mind--ap-
c; 
plication under Or.32, Rule 1 read with Rule l~Rent Controller appointing 
father as appellant's guardian and ney_t friend-Order affirmed by High 
Court--Later, when after dismissal of eviction petition matter again c01.ne 
before High Court, it held that eviction petition was not maintainable without 
a guardian/next friend being appointed in accordance with provisions of Ss.52 
to 55 of Mental Health Act-Held, in the instant case provisions provided D 
under Order 32, Rules 1 and 15, CPC were applicable and not that under 
Ss.52 to 55 of Mental Health Act-High Court would decide the revision on 
merits--Rent' and Eviction-Eviction Petition~M ental Health Act, 
1987,~Ss.50, 52 53, 54 and 55. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.98 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.R. No. 814 of 1997. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, M.S. Dhillon and M.P. Shorawala for the Appel-
!ant. 
Raju Ramachandran, Guanendra Agarwal and Bharat Sangal for 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
F 
G 
Raj Kumar, appellant no. 1 is a mentally retarded person. An ap-
plication through next friend was filed on his behalf for eviction of the H 
345 
346 
SlJPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A respondents from the premises which was owned by Raj Kumar. In reply 
to the Eviction Petition, it was inter alia stated that the appellant was a man 
of unsound mind and was not capable of doing any business and as no 
guardian has been appointed by the District Judge, the father could not 
act as a guardian. 
B 
An Application under Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15, C.P.C. 
was filed and the rent controlling authority by its order dated 4.8.93 
appointed the father as the appellant's guardian and next friend. This order 
was challenged by the respondents by filing a civil revision before the High 
Court and the· High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.93 affirmed the 
C order of appointment of the father of appellant as his guardian and next 
friend. 
The rent control authority, after trial of the case, dismissed the 
application for eviction. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the appel-
lant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment 
D dated 3.7.98 dismissed the revision not on merits but on the ground that 
the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 applied and the petition 
which was filed was not maintainable .before the rent controlling authority 
without a guardian/next friend being appointed in accordance with the 
provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid Act. In fact, the 
E High Court did not consider the merits of the case. Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
Sections 52 to 55 are contained in Chapter VI of the Mental Health 
Act, 1987. This Chapter contains provisions relating to "Judicial inquisition 
regarding alleged mentally ill person possessing property, custody of his 
F person and management of his property." Section 50 provides for an 
application being made for holding an inquisition with regard to the mental 
condition of a person which is alleged to be mentally ill and is possessed 
of property. Such an application can be filed only by the persons or 
authorities specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 50. 
G It is pursuant to the proceedings so initiated that the other provisions of 
the Chapter including Sections 52 to 55 would apply. Section 50 does not 
contemplate any application being made or a contention being raised by a 
tenant in a proceeding for eviction against him. 
In the instant case what was applicable was Order 32, Rule 1 read 
H with Rule 15. An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance 
(
)
RAJ KUMAR v. RAMESHCHAND 
347 
with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed A 
before the Rent Controller and the father was appointed as the guardian 
and next friend of the appellant. Nothing more was required to be done 
and the High Court, in our opinion, was in error in coming to the con-
clusion that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable and the procedure 
provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 had not be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.