SANJEEV SAXENA Vs. NITIN PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 4.2.2015 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Etah, whereby the application filed by the petitioners in SCC suit no. 1 of 1996 for being made party to the suit as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant came to be rejected. The order passed by the revisional court dated 8.4.2015 is also under challenge.

(2.) It appears from the record that SCC suit no.1 of 1996 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondents 1 and 2 against Anand Bihari Lal Saxena for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. He contested the suit by filing a written statement. However, during pendency of the suit, he died. The plaintiff/landlords moved an application for substitution Paper No.133-A, stating that after the death of the tenant, his widow alone is occupying the demised premises and she be substituted in his place. It was further stated in the application that no other heir of the deceased tenant is in possession of the demised premises. The application was allowed and the widow Smt. Indra Saxena was brought on record. Thereafter Smt. Indra Saxena filed an application 142 C for brining on record her son and two daughters (petitioners herein) alleging that they were also in occupation of the demised premises and have inherited the tenancy right after the death of Anand Bihari Lal Saxena. The application was rejected by the Judge Small Causes Court by order dated 25.11.2014. While rejecting the application, the Judge Small Causes placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Pooja Gupta vs. Pushkar Kumar, 2008 72 AllLR 762 wherein this Court has held that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. For taking such view, this Court has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Tandon vs. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, 1995 25 AllLR 184, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. Further reliance has been placed on another judgement of the Supreme Court in case of H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul, 1989 15 AllLR 864 wherein similar view has been taken. Accordingly, it was held that after the death of the original tenant, it was not necessary to implead all his heirs as long as even one of the heirs is already on record. It was found that the widow of the deceased tenant is already on record and is duly contesting the claim of the landlord.

(3.) It seems that after rejection of the application 142 C, moved by the widow of the deceased tenant, another application 145C came to be filed at the instance of the petitioners who are the son and daughters of the deceased tenant. They have also made a prayer for being impleaded in the suit in place of the deceased tenant as according to them they have inherited the tenancy rights.