KAMLA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was allowed on 19-2-1985.

(2.) INITIALLY trial court had decreed the suit of petitioners for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, which was filed against respondents 2 to 7, holding that petitioners were landlords and respondents 2 to 7 were tenants. A revision was filed by Lalloo, respondent No. 2 against the said judgment and decree which was allowed by District Judge, Allahabad on 21-4-1980 (Civil Revision No. 159 of 1979 Lalloo v. Kamla Prasad). This writ petition was directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Revisional Court. Through judgment and order dated 19-2-1985 passed in this writ petition, judgment and order passed by the Revisional court was substantially reversed and it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. However, the matter was remanded to the revisional court to decide only the question of default.

(3.) IN the writ petition counter affidavit was filed by Bhola Nath, respondent No. 6 and in paragraph 1 of the said counter affidavit it was stated that he was doing Pairvi on behalf of other contesting respondents, including respondent No. 2 i.e. Lalloo, who died afterward. All the contesting respondents were joint tenants. In case of joint tenancy every joint tenant can represent the other joint tenant (vide Harish Tandon v. A.D.M., 1995(1) RCR(Rent) 217 : A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 676 (1995 All LJ 350) and A.C. Juker v. K.P Mantri, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2251. In view of this even after the death of Lalloo, his interest was sufficiently represented by respondents 3 to, 7. In view of this it cannot be said that death of respondent No. 2 and non-impleadment of his heirs during pendency of writ petition rendered the judgment dated 19-2- 1985 to be null and void. In any case, in the application dated 16-9-1985 there is no prayer for setting aside the judgment of this Court dated 19-2- 1985. The only prayer is for staying the proceedings of revision before the Revisional Court in pursuance of judgment and order dated 19-2-1985. In my opinion, therefore, judgment and order dated 19-2-1985 cannot be set-aside only on the ground that respondent No. 2, one of the 7 joint tenants had died and his heirs had not been substituted.