ABDUL RAHIM Vs. SYED ABDUL RAHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a person, who was in occupation of a tenanted premises along with its tenant against whom a petition for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ("the Act"), if continues to occupy that premises even after the death of the tenant, can be brought on record in the pending eviction petition as the legal representative of the deceased tenant, is the dispute which is required to be resolved in this revision petition.

(2.) One Abdul Rahim was a tenant of certain premises under Abdul Rahaman, the respondent here, who filed in the Court below, an eviction petition under the Act, seeking eviction of the former from that premises. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Abdul Rahim, the tenant, died. One Abdul Majeed, who was living in the said premises along with its tenant and continued to live therein after the death of the tenant, made an application, LA. III, in the eviction petition purporting to be under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"), seeking to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased tenant (Abdul Rahim). Thereafter, the landlord (the respondent here) also made an application, I.A. IV, purporting to be under Order 22 Rule 4A of the Code in the eviction petition, seeking leave of the Court to proceed with the eviction petition without bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased tenant. By its order dated 8th February 1985, the Court below dismissed I.A. III and allowed I.A. IV. The validity of that order is questioned in this revision petition, by the applicant in I.A. III.

(3.) The Court below has made the order under revision, on its view that the petitioner here had not placed any document to show that in law, he represents the estate of the deceased tenant, though it had come to the conclusion that the documents produced by the petitioner here indicated that he was residing in the tenanted premises. Whether the petitioner here was not entitled to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased tenant, when it was held that he was residing in that premises after the death of the tenant, is the dispute which requires to be resolved, as stated at the outset.