Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Alka Sarin emphasizes procedural adherence under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC in eviction case involving comatose landlord.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a fresh inquiry into the mental competency of Paramjit Kaur, the landlord in an eviction case, to determine the need for appointing a legal guardian. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alka Sarin, responds to the tenant-petitioner M/s Parkash Jewellers' challenge to the dismissal of applications seeking such an appointment. The court emphasized adherence to procedural requirements under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The case dates back to May 23, 2014, when Paramjit Kaur, the landlord, filed an ejectment petition against M/s Parkash Jewellers for arrears of rent and bona fide personal necessity. The Rent Controller initially assessed provisional rent in January 2018, and subsequent appeals by the tenant were dismissed by higher courts, culminating in an eviction order upheld by the Supreme Court in December 2023.
Following these proceedings, the tenant-petitioner filed applications in February 2024 for appointing a legal guardian for the landlord, adjourning the execution process sine die, and allowing the deposit of arrears of rent. These applications were dismissed by the executing court in March 2024, prompting the current revision petition.
Procedural Necessity: Justice Sarin highlighted the procedural necessity of holding an inquiry as mandated by Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC, noting, “The procedures cannot be given a go-by and hence an inquiry ought to have been held by the Executing Court.” This rule necessitates a formal inquiry to establish the mental competency of a person alleged to be of unsound mind before appointing a legal guardian.
Hostile Legal Tactics: The court observed that the tenant-petitioner appeared to be employing legal tactics to delay the proceedings. "Though it is apparent that the tenant-petitioner is taking the benefit of technicalities and trying to delay the proceedings, the procedures cannot be given a go-by," Justice Sarin remarked.
Medical Evidence: The court took into account the medical evidence provided, which indicated that the landlord was in a comatose state since September 2022. However, the court clarified that the presence of a medical condition does not automatically negate the necessity for a formal inquiry.
The court’s legal reasoning rested on established precedents and the mandatory nature of procedural rules. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kasturi Bai vs. Anguri Chaudhary, the court reiterated that an inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC is essential to protect the interests of individuals unable to represent themselves due to mental infirmity.
Justice Sarin also referred to the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Somnath Dnyanoba Mahapure vs. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu, which emphasized the court’s duty to conduct an inquiry and assess the mental capacity of the concerned individual.
Justice Sarin noted, "It is the duty of the Court to hold an inquiry... It is not necessary for the next friend to make a separate application for that purpose. This inquiry should ordinarily include the calling of the plaintiff himself and questioning him in Court."
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals. The mandate for a formal inquiry ensures that the interests of the landlord, Paramjit Kaur, are adequately protected, reinforcing the legal framework's robustness in addressing such sensitive issues. The executing court is directed to conduct the inquiry within 15 days, ensuring expeditious resolution without unnecessary delays.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024