DEEPAK VERMA Vs. DAYA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist assails an order dated 30.05.2018, passed by the Trial Court, by which the application of the respondent/plaintiff for substitution of the deceased defendant, under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"], was allowed.

(2.) On 11.11.2014, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against Sh.Chandu Lal Verma, the father of the revisionist [hereinafter referred to as "original defendant"]. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for arrears of rent under a tenancy of a shop taken by the original defendant from the plaintiff. The shop is situated on the ground floor of property bearing No.1456, Gali No.100, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035. It appears from the record that the plaintiff also resides at the same address.

(3.) The original defendant died on 30.01.2016, and the plaintiff filed an application for substitution of his legal heirs on 28.05.2016. The revisionist contested the application on the ground of limitation. It is not disputed that, in the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, the death of the original defendant was communicated to the Court and recorded in an order dated 19.03.2016. The plaintiff, however, claimed in the application for substitution that he found out about the death of the original defendant only when possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to him by the revisionist on 17.05.2016. (The revisionist disputes this position and contends that the possession of the shop was taken over forcibly on that date).