HANS RAJ Vs. JEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) had been instituted by Late Smt.Jeet Kaur. It is not in issue that during her lifetime she had executed a power of attorney in favour of her son Shri Bhupinder Singh, who undoubtedly has acted as her Parokar in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. On her death an application has been filed by Shri Bhupinder Singh on behalf of himself as well as his son Shri Ramandeep Singh. In the application it has been contended that a will had been executed in their favour by Late Smt. Jeet Kaur. It was in these circumstances that the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application, without considering it necessary for issuing any notice to the natural heirs, whose details had been given by Shri Bhupinder Singh, in his affidavit annexed with the application.

(2.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the order is incorrect since there has been no compliance with the provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed by him on the following paragraph of the decision of a single Judge of the Patna High Court in Md. Janudul Hague V. Md.Zubair Haider & Anr . AIR 1981 PATNA 345 which is as follows;

(3.) Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anang Pal v. Pearey Lal & Ors., AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 87. In my view neither of these decision are of any assistance to the contention raised before me.