KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DAU DAYAL DWARKA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) THE first point raised by Mr. Mathur is that the authorities below were in error in holding that the petition for eviction as originally filed by M/s.Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and others did not stand abated on the failure of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal is not having: filed the amended petition for ejectelent as, directed by the Rent Controller. THE petition for eviction was filed by M/s. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass through five persons, two of whom namely. Mohan Lal and Mukesh Lal had signed and verified the petition. Mohan Lal died during the pendency of the petition on which his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on the record on the application of Mukesh Lal, attorney of the petitioners, having been filed in that regard. Mr. Mathur submitted that it was incumbent on the remaining petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Lal to have filed an amended petition and that not having been done by them, their filing of a revised memo of parties wherein they included the names of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased alongwith them as petitioners, was not sufficient for saving the petition from abatement. It was submitted that out of the two persons who signed the petition Mohan Lal had died and Mukesh Lal had signed the petition only as an attorney of the remaining petitioners. THEre is absolutely no substance in this submission and the; authorities below were right in rejecting the submission. It has come on the record that the petitioner was a partnership firm and Mukesh Lal was the attorney of the firm. THErefore, on the death of Mohan Lal who was one of the partners of the firm, his legal representatives need not have been brought on the record in view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(1), of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, even if the five persons who filed the petition on behalf of M/s. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and others as joint landlords of the respondent, the death of one of them did not affect the right of the remaining four joint landlords in maintaining the petition even without the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased having been brought on the record. Lastly the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased were brought on the record when the court accepted the application of Mukesh Lal attorney of the petitioners in that behalf and no amendment as such was required to be made and the filing of the revised memo of parties wherein the names of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased were added to the remaining petitioners was itself sufficient compliance of the direction of the Rent Controller with regard to the filing of the amended petition]