Girish Kumar Chaturvedi (Dead) Th. Lrs. & Ors. vs Madan Mohan Agarwal & Ors

The eviction proceedings were filed by the late appellant on the anvil of his retirement by invoking the provisions of section 21(1-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

The appellant did not succeed before the Rent Controller but the appellate authority opined in his favour. The High Court once again set aside the judgment restoring the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the present appeal.

The passage of time has seen the demise of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

It is a case of learned counsel for the respondent that the petition has become infructuous as it was predicated on the requirement of the appellant on the anvil of retirement from service. He has drawn our attention to section 21(7) which reads as under:

"(7) Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section(1), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased."

We may note that subsection 1(a) refers to bona fide requirement and this provision relates to continuity of cause of action insofar as the legal heirs of the landlord claiming bona fide requirement.

The legislature has not made such a provision in case of an eviction proceedings under Section 21(1-A) as the cause of action is retirement of an officer.

We have only analyzed the aforesaid position restricted to the question whether the appeal has become infructuous or the impleadment of legal heirs can give a continuity to cause of action.

On a query as to what are the instructions coming forth, learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that it was only the late appellant who was following up the matter while the legal representatives brought on record have not been in touch with him.

In view of the aforesaid, it may not be appropriate to decide the legal issue in this matter and we dismiss the appeal as infructuous leaving the legal heirs to pursue their own cause against the tenanted property, if so advised.