VIRAN DEVI Vs. T N SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. Makhija on behalf of the heirs of the respondent, T.N. Sachdeva, who died in September, 1983. He was a tenant of Smt, Viran Devi, the appellant. Counsel submits that. without hearing the heirs of the tenant, the order in this appeal could not be passed in favour of Smt. Viran Devi allowing her to withdraw the rent deposited by Sachdeva in his life time. He has advanced two arguments in support of his contention.

(2.) In the first place he says that the appeal had become incompetent because the heirs of Sachdeva were not brought on the record in time. In the second place he' submits that after the petition was dismissed, the Additional Controller had become functus officio and had no power left in him to order payment of the rent deposited by Sachdeva to the landlady.

(3.) In my opinion, both these arguments are devoid of merit. In this case, death of Sachdeva does not affect the right of Smt. Viran Devi, the landlady, to claim that the rent lying in deposit with the Additional Controller be paid to her. Since Sachdeva had deposited the rent and it not being disputed that she was the landlady of Sachdeva, she was clearly entitled to rent. The plea that the Land and Development Officer had forfeited Viran Devi's lease and, therefore, the title to property did not vest in her, was rejected by the Additional Controller and I think in this he was right. The lease was at once restored in her favour. It is admitted by Mr. Makhija that the rent Was paid for the subsequent period to Smt. Viran Devi. The only period for which the dispute remains is that period during which the lease had been not restored. If Sachdeva was bound to pay rent to Smt. Viran Devi, as is now clear from the admission of Mr. Makhija, I do not see any reason why she should not be entitled to the rent deposited under the orders of the Additional Controller.