SATYAWATI GUPTA Vs. SASHI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the main contention urged is that no formal order for bringing the petitioners on record as legal representative of deceased Shri P.C. Gupta was passed, during proceedings in the eviction petition, brought by the landlady under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), and as such, the eviction order is vitiated.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I find from the order sheets in the original case records that after the eviction petition was filed by the previous owner Smt. Usha Jain, an application was moved by respondent No. 2, Smt. Shashi Jain under Order 22 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code praying to be substituted as petitioner, on the plea that she had since purchased the property. At the same time i.e. on 2.2.1984 another application was filed by her, under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code staling that respondent No. 2, Shri P.C. Gupta, who was in occupation of the premises had since died and his legal representatives be brought on record. Whereas the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was allowed in so far as application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was concerned, notice was ordered to issue to the legal representatives. In the meantime the petitioner filed an amended memo of parties showing name of the present petitioners as legal representative of deceased, Shri P.C. Gupta, who whs respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition.

(3.) Notices were issued and eventually all of them were served and when the matter came up on 11.3.1987 before the Addl. Rent Controller, a Counsel appeared for the legal representatives and as prayed, the matter was adjourned to 6.5.1987 for filing the written statement. According to Shri Adlakha this was on request of Counsel for the legal representatives (petitioners herein) because respondent No. I in the proceedings, the tenant S. Chand& Co. Ltd., had already filed a written statement. No written statement was filed by the legal representatives on the adjourned date i.e. 9.5.1987 and another date i.e. 1.7.1987 was given on which date neither the Counsel nor any of the legal representatives appeared nor written statement had been filed. An order of ex-parte proceedings against them was passed, in face of the above position.