BANSI LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Smt. Sushila Devi, predecessor -in -title of the third respondent instituted SCC Suit No. 25 of 1999 against the petitioner (defendant No. 1), Jai Kumar (defendant No. 2), Harish Kumar (defendant No. 3) and Smt. Gyan Kaur (defendant No. 4), for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. According to the plaint case, Kanshi Ram was inducted as tenant of two shops and after his death, the tenancy devolved on the defendants, who are the sons and widow of Late Kanshi Ram. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 8 December 2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred a revision, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the original plaintiff Smt. Sushila Devi filed a writ petition before this Court.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, Smt. Sushila Devi died on 11 December 2009. Jai Kumar, defendant No. 2, who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition also died on 15 January 2011. Two separate applications for substitution were filed in the writ petition, one being on behalf of Smt. Mithlesh Agrawal (the third respondent) claiming substitution in place of Smt. Sushila Devi on the basis of a Will in her favour. The other application for substitution was in respect of Jai Kumar and thereby his widow Smt. Neelam and two minor sons Rishab and Mayank were sought to be brought on record. It seems that the application for substitution of the heir and legal representative of the deceased petitioner Smt. Sushila Devi was duly allowed by this Court. However, the other substitution application filed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Jai Kumar remained pending, though notices were issued to the proposed heirs. It further appears that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing the writ petition and thus, no orders could be passed on the application for substitution of the heirs of Jai Kumar. Ultimately, by judgment dated 26 August 2013, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision.

(3.) THE application was opposed by the petitioner, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit, by filing objections to the effect that the application is bad for misjoinder of causes of action inasmuch as, two different prayers for substitution of the heir of the deceased plaintiff and that of deceased defendant cannot be clubbed together. The petitioner also raised objection that no Will on the basis of which Smt. Mithlesh Agrawal sought her substitution has been brought on record and also on the ground that the age of the proposed minor heirs has not been disclosed. It was further alleged that on account of non -substitution of the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 2, the proceedings have abated.