Raj Kumar Vs. Rameshchand & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP(C) 91/99)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 814 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 814 of 1997)
Petitioner: Raj Kumar
Respondent: Rameshchand & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP(C) 91/99)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 814 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 814 of 1997)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 10, 1999
Appearances:
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, Mr. Guanendra Agarwal, Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocates with him for the appellant
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Mr. M.P.Shorawala, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Mr. M.P.Shorawala, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 32, Rule 15 with Mental Health Act, 1987 Sections 52 to 55- Eviction petition against tenant by mentally retarded persons /owner – Petition by next friend – Application under Order 32 Rule 1 filed and father appointed as guardian and next friend – Against order of dismissal, revision filed by such person – High Court dismissing on the grounds that Act of 1987 not followed – Justification. Held that High Court was in error since the provi-sions of Order 37 Rules 1 and 15 are complied with, provisions of Act 1987 are not applicable . Appeal allowed. Matter sent back for consideration on merits.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 32, Rule 15 with Mental Health Act, 1987 Sections 52 to 55- Eviction petition against tenant by mentally retarded persons /owner – Petition by next friend – Application under Order 32 Rule 1 filed and father appointed as guardian and next friend – Against order of dismissal, revision filed by such person – High Court dismissing on the grounds that Act of 1987 not followed – Justification. Held that High Court was in error since the provi-sions of Order 37 Rules 1 and 15 are complied with, provisions of Act 1987 are not applicable . Appeal allowed. Matter sent back for consideration on merits.
Held:
In the instant case what was applicable was order 32, rule 1 read with Rule 15. An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed 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 conclusion that the Evic-tion Petition was not maintainable and the procedure provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 not been com-plied with. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Raj Kumar, appellant No. 1 is a meantally retarded person. An application through next friend was filed on his behalf for eviction of the 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 ap-pointed by the District Judge, the father could not act as a guardian.
3. An application under Order 32, Rile 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 filling a civil revision before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.93 affirmed the order of appointment of the father of appellant as his guardian and next friend.
4. The rent control authority, after trial of the case, dismissed the application for eviction. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment 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 main-tainable before the rent controlling authority without a guard-ian/next friend being appointed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid Act. In fact, the High Court did not consider the merits of the case. Hence this appeal by special leave.
5. 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 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. 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 proceed-ing for eviction against him.
6. In the instant case what was applicable was order 32, rule 1 read with Rule 15. An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed 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 conclusion that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable and the procedure provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 not been complied with.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the im-pugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997 on merits. The High Court should dispose of the said revision as expe-ditiously as possible, preferably within a period six months.
1. Leave granted.
2. Raj Kumar, appellant No. 1 is a meantally retarded person. An application through next friend was filed on his behalf for eviction of the 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 ap-pointed by the District Judge, the father could not act as a guardian.
3. An application under Order 32, Rile 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 filling a civil revision before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.93 affirmed the order of appointment of the father of appellant as his guardian and next friend.
4. The rent control authority, after trial of the case, dismissed the application for eviction. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment 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 main-tainable before the rent controlling authority without a guard-ian/next friend being appointed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid Act. In fact, the High Court did not consider the merits of the case. Hence this appeal by special leave.
5. 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 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. 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 proceed-ing for eviction against him.
6. In the instant case what was applicable was order 32, rule 1 read with Rule 15. An application for appointment of a guardian in accordance with the said provisions was filed. An application to this effect was filed 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 conclusion that the Eviction Petition was not maintainable and the procedure provided by Sections 52 to 55 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 not been complied with.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the im-pugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997 on merits. The High Court should dispose of the said revision as expe-ditiously as possible, preferably within a period six months.
