LAWS(SC)-2000-12-43

BHAJRANGALAL AGARWAL D Vs. CHANNAPPA HATPAKI D

Decided On December 05, 2000
BHAJRANGALAL AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
CHANNAPPA HATPAKI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) Appellants 1 (a) to 1 (e) are the legal representatives of appellant no. 1, late Bhajrangalal Agarwal, who died during the pendency of the revision before the High Court. He had obtained on rent the suit premises, a non-residential building, of which late Channappa Hatpakki, respondent no. 1 was the landlord. His legal representatives are respondents 1 (a) to 1 (d). The appellants have challenged the legality of the order of the High Court passed in Civil Petition No. 162 of 2000 dated February 23, 2000 in this appeal. (Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as 'tenant' and the 'landlord').

(3.) The tenant had suffered an order of eviction from the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Hubli in H. R. C. No. 254 of 1983 dated March 7, 1987. Against the said order, he filed a revision before the First Additional District Judge, Dharwad being Revision (Rent No. 49/87). It was dismissed on October 21, 1992. It was against that order that the afore mentioned revision was filed by the tenant before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision petition, the tenant, revision petitioner, died on April 19, 1999. The revision stood abated for the legal representatives of the tenant were not brought on record within the period of limitation. Appellants 1 (a) to 1 (e) filed applications to set aside abatement and to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. There was delay of 95 days in filing the said applications. The explanation for the delay was that they had no knowledge that the business premises in which their father was carrying on the business was the subject matter of revision before the High Court and that as soon as they came to know of it on 9.12.99 when they were brought on record in the execution petition filed by the landlord, they made further enquiries, took necessary steps and filed the applications on January 9, 2000. There was thus a delay of 95 days in filing the applications. The High Court by the impugned order, declined to condone the delay and also held that in case of non-residential premises the legal representatives had no right to come on record.