MADAN GOPAL HARGOPAL Vs. PADAM CHAND VAISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2003 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCT No.23/ 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as having abated.

(2.) The facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are as under:-

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the appeal could not have been dismissed as having abated since Brij Gopal one of the partners of M/s Madan Gopal Har Gopal died on 22.1.2003 and an application had been moved by the legal representatives of Har Gopal in time to be substituted. It is further contended by counsel that the firm, M/s Madan Gopal Har Gopal was never dissolved and even though one of the partners Madan Gopal died on 25.09.1982 the firm continued to be represented by Har Gopal who died on 29.10.2002 during pendency of the appeal before the tribunal and on the death of Har Gopal the firm continued to exist till Brij Gopal died on 22.1.2003. In this context he submits that the legal representatives of Har Gopal were well within their rights to be substituted in place of Har Gopal on the death of Brij Gopal on 22.1.2003. The application for substitution ought to have been allowed and the appeal proceeded with on merits.