1999 INSC 0772
                                                      Raj Kumar

                                                           Vs

                                             Rameshchand and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 1999

                                       (B. N. Kirpal, S. Rajendra Babu JJ)

                                                      01.10.1999

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Raj Kumar, Appellant 1 is a mentally 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 business and as no guardian had been appointed by the
District Judge, the father could not act as a guardian.

3. An application under Order 32 Rule 1 read with Rule 15 CPC was filed and the Rent Control
Authority by its order dated 4.08.1993 appointed the father as the appellant's guardian and next
friend. This order was challenged by the respondents by fling a civil revision before the High Court
and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.1993 affirmed the order of appointment of the
father of the 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 judgement dated 03.07.1998 dismissed the revision not on merits but on the ground that
the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 applied an the petition which was filed was not
maintainable before the Rent Control 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 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
who is alleged to be mentally ill and is possessed of property. Such an application can be filed only
by 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 proceedings 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 had not been complied
with.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside. The High Court is directed to decide Civil Revision No. 814 of 1997 on merits. The High
Court should dispose of the said revision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
six months.