Jagdish Chander (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Brahm Dutt - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case debated on whether legal heirs of the deceased tenant could seek the protection against the eviction under section 14(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 - it was held that the protection could be availed by the tenant - thus the legal heirs of the deceased were not entitled to seek protection - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of justice, family division. u.k. praying for an order that the minor child be made a ward of the court and for a direction upon the wife to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of the said court. a further direction was given for the passport and other international travel documents of the minor child to be handed over to the solicitors of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of a minor child. - in paragraph 11 the supreme court observed that they were entitled to make any defense appropriate to their character as legal representatives since they could not even inherit the statutory protection enjoyed by the deceased they could not in the present case the legal representatives of the decease appellant have not urged any ground peculiar to court decision cited above they are not have not urged any court decision cited entitled to the protection of s.1. this second appeal was originally filed by the tenant jagdish chander against the order of the rent tribunal found that the tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit and the subsequent acceptance of rent form the tenant by the landlord did not amount to a waiver of the said notice in view of the decision of the supreme court in ganga dutt murarka v. kartika chandra das. : [1961]3scr813 . it further held that the landlord was entitled to the possession of the premises from the tenant because them bonafie for his own occupation as a residence within the meaning of clause (e) for the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act 1956 (hereinafter called the act) i agree with both these findings.2. during the pendency of the appeal the tenant died on an application made by the legal representatives of the tenant the deputy registrar directed their names to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant this order was passed by the subject to all just exception'. the respondent thereupon made an application that the appeal has become infructuous on the death of the tenant and is liable to be dismissed.3. the deceased tenant was only a statutory tenant inasmuch as the tenancy has been validly determined by the landlord by a notice to quit. according to the supreme court decision in anand niwas (pvt) ltd v. anandji kalyanji pedhi. : [1964]4scr892 .' a person remaining to occupation of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly though in law not accurately called a 'statutory' tenant such a person is not a tenant at premises occupied by him he has merely he has the protection of the statute in that he cannot turned out so long as the pays that standard rent and permitted increases, if any and performs the other conditions of the tenancy his right to remain possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy is personal it is not capable of being transferred or assigned and devolves on his death only on the manner provided by the statutes.'4.under the delhi rent control act. 1958 a person against whom an order for eviction is passed ceases to be a tenant the deceased was thereforee only entitled to the protection of the act in his personal capacity alone. he a could not pass this protection to his assignees or legal representatives the legal of the entitled to the protection of section 14 of the act.5.the decision in anand niwas case : [1964]4scr892 was followed by the supreme court again in j. c. chatterjee v. shri kishan tandon : [1973]1scr850 . in that case the second appeal has been filed by the pendency of the said appeal. the legal representatives were brought on record. in paragraph 11 the supreme court observed that they were entitled to make any defense appropriate to their character as legal representatives since they could not even inherit the statutory protection enjoyed by the deceased they could not in the present case the legal representatives of the decease appellant have not urged any ground peculiar to court decision cited above they are not have not urged any court decision cited entitled to the protection of s. 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958. it follows thereforee that the landlord is entitled to evict them under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14 inasmuch as the legal representative cannot make in fact the landlord can simply evict them on the sole ground that the tenancy of the deceased having been terminated they have no right to resist the claim of the landlord for possession. however as the original claim of the landlord against the deceased tenant was made under clause (e) of the provision to sub-section (1) of section 14 and in view of the death of the tenant which is already a calamity befalling the legal representatives i pass the following order in this appeal:-the appeal is dismissed but the landlord respondent shall not evict the legal representatives of the deceased tenant for a period of six months from today. the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred.6. appeal dismissed.