BABU LAL Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated April 21, 1986, passed by Shri G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order in arguments only on two points; firstly, that the legal heirs of deceased tenant Bhagwan Dass were not sought to be impleaded as respondents in the eviction petition pending before the Additional Rent Controller, hence, the eviction petition should be deemed to have abated; secondly that is has not been proved from the evidence brought on the record by the respondent that the premises in question had been let out only for residential purposes. Counsel for the petitioners was frank enough not to challenge the findings of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to the respondent being owner of the premises in question and the respondent being not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation and his bonafide requirement for the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him for the purposes of residence.

(3.) Now taking up the first point, it is clear from the record that the eviction petition was filed against Bhagwan Dass in May 1981 and Bhagwan Dass had filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend the eviction petition but the Additional Rent Controller had dismissed the said application and bad passed the eviction order treating the facts slated in the eviction petition as correct. Bhagwan Dass had filed civil revision in the High Court seeking selling aside of the aroresaid order. During the pendency of the civil revision in the High Court, Bhagwan Dass admittedly had died and his legal heirs were substituted as petitioners in the civil revision in place of Bhagwan Dass and ultimately vide order dated July 16, 1984,YogeshwarDayal,J.(as His Lordship then was) allowed the Civil Revision No. 211/82 and granted the leave to defend to the legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass and gave the directions to the parties to appear before the trial Court on August 6, 1984, on which date written statement shall be filed. It is true that one of the points raised before the High Court was whether all or any of the legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass sought to be brought on record could be termed as legal heirs for the purposes of amended definition of 'tenant' given in the Act. This question was left open for decision by the High Court with the observations, that in view of the objections raised by the respondent landlord and the counsel for the petitioner, the heirs mentioned in the application are brought on rccord for purposes of this revision petition only and not for the purposes of ejectment application, and the question as to who are the legal heirs for the purposes of ejectment application will be decided by the trial Court. This particular observation of the High Court does not mean that the legal heirs already substituted, if not objected to in the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, could not participate in the proceedings or any new order was required to be made by the Additional Rent Controller for bringing the said legal heirs on-record for the purposes of deciding the eviction petition. The aforesaid observations were made by the Court for the benefit of the landlord because if landlord was to agitate the plea that none of the or some of the legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass tenant were not covered by the definition of "tenant" given in the Act and thus were not entitled to be allowed to contest the eviction petition, the High Court left the question open for decision of the Additional Rent Controller if such a point was to be raised by the landlord. It does not mean that if landlord was not to raise any such plea before the Additional Rent Controller even then the landlord was legally bound to bring an application before the Additional Rent Controller for substituting the legal heirs as respondents in the eviction petition when they have been already substituted in the revision petition. The legal position in respect of substitution of legal heirs in the appeal or in the revision is quite clear that once the legal heirs have been substituted in the appellate court or in revisional court, there is no necessity of bringing any application before the trial Court for substituting the legal heirs in the proceedings and the proceedings do not abate for omission to make any such application.