SUDERSHAN SINGH Vs. AMRIT LATA JHAMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant had filed a suit being Suit No.83/2000 seeking permanent injunction against his tenant Smt.Amrit Lata Jhamb in the first floor of premises bearing No.M-16, Green Park (Main), New Delhi. The said suit was dismissed in default by the Trial Court on 17th October, 2001 due to non-appearance of the appellant. Thereafter he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') seeking restoration of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 7th August, 2002. Challenge to the said order was also unsuccessful and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 16th September, 2004. Appellant preferred this appeal challenging the orders of the courts below.

(2.) During pendency of this appeal, respondent tenant Amrit Lata Jhamb expired. Consequently, in view of provisions contained in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short `DRC Act') appellant filed this application for bringing on record Sh. Harish Jhamb, her husband as respondent, as according to the appellant, he was the only legal heir of the deceased tenant who could enjoy the tenancy for a period of one year only after the death of respondent tenant and other legal heirs of deceased were neither necessary nor proper party to the appeal. Before this application could be decided, Harish Jhamb also expired. Hence, proceedings against Harish Jhamb qua this application stood abated on his death. This application, therefore, needs no consideration as it stands abated. CM No. 8762/2006 (under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC r/w Sections 2(1) of DRC Act & Section 2(11) & Section 151 CPC

(3.) This application was filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC read with Sections 2(1) & 2(11) of DRC Act and Section 151 CPC. It is averred by the appellant that after the death of respondent tenant, statutory tenancy had extinguished on 5th December, 2004 and thereafter it was essential to replace the defending party by the lawful successor i.e. Harish Jhamb, for which an application was filed on 15th February, 2005. Harish Jhamb contested the application contending that besides him, deceased tenant had left behind her son Kapil Jhamb and daughter Poonam Nanda, as her legal heirs, who were entitled to inherit the tenancy. Therefore, she sought for recording of evidence to find out the existence and actual address of Poonam Nanda and Kapil Jhamb as Kapil Jhamb is missing for quite sometime and even Harish Jhamb did not know his address.