BHAGWANTI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti against an order of the District Judge, Dehradun, dated 6 -3 -1982 dismissing the revision and affirming the order of the Civil Judge rejecting her application for impleadment as a party to the suit between the landlord and the tenant. The short question involved in this case is whether the Petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti, mother of the deceased -tenant Autar Singh was his heir and entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit. Both the Courts have rejected her prayer. The Courts below considered the question as to whether she was a resident of the premises in dispute during and after the life time of the tenant Autar Singh. The finding was that she was not residing in the disputed premises after the death of Autar Singh.

(2.) In my view, both the Courts below have committed a manifest error of law, inasmuch as they considered the case as if it was a case under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act'. Since Autar Singh died in 1963, the 1972 Act had no application whatsoever. At the time of his death the prevailing law was the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act. Sec. 2(g) of the 1947 Act defines a tenant in the following words:

(3.) According to personal law applicable to a Hindu the mother of a person would also be his heir. Consequently, the Petitioner would be an heir of her son Autar Singh, and would succeed to his interest including tenancy rights along with his other heirs, namely, the son and the widow. The Petitioner would thus become an heir and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in any suit for eviction or for recovery of arrears of rent.