KHAJA QUTUBUDDIN SHAREEF Vs. M SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller allowing petition filed by the respondents 2 to 5 as legal representatives, as confirmed by the appellate order. The deceased one M.Satyanarayana filed R.C.No.332 of 1989 for eviction against the petitioner under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (for short 'the Act') on grounds of default in payment of arrears and sub-tenancy. During the pendency of the eviction petition M. Satyanarayana died on 18-9-1993 leaving behind two sons, two daughters and pre-deceased son's widow. The 2nd respondent who is Satyanarayana's pre-deceased son's wife filed I.A.No.709 of 1993 for permission to come herself on record and prosecute eviction petition. She relied on registered Will dated 29-3-1993 said to have been executed by the deceased. As per registered Will, the house which is subject matter of eviction petition and some other properties were allotted to the respondents (widow and minor children). Counter was filed to this I.A., by the tenant wherein he denied the knowledge of the Will and that until and unless the Will is proved, the legal representatives cannot be brought on record. The Rent controller allowed the petition, overruling the objection of the tenant, taking the view that the tenant is not prejudiced by L.Rs. coming on record at this stage and it is always open to the tenant to prove during the trial of the eviction petition that the respondents are not the L.Rs and that they are not entitled to continue the eviction proceeding. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court in R.A. (SR) No.8612 of 1994. Against this, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) Sri Basith AH Yavar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under Rule 19 (3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person such question shall be referred to a Civil Court for determination. He fairly conceded that this question has not been raised in the Court below but as it is purely a question of law, he may be permitted to raise this point. According to him, as he has challenged that respondents are not legal representatives of the deceased Satyanarayana, that question has to be referred to Civil Court. On the other hand, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that this "contention is academic since even de hors the will, the second respondent in her capacity as pre-deceased sons's widow will be one of the heirs of deceased landlord under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, that as one co-owner, she is entitled to file or prosecute the eviction petition on behalf of other co-owners and that she is entitled to come on record. He thus supports the orders of the Courts below though on this different reasoning.

(3.) I agree with the contention of Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents, that even assuming that there is no will, the first respondent as predeceased son's widow will be one of the legal heirs, entitled to prosecute the eviction petition already filed by the deceased. Section 2 (vi) of the Act which defines the term 'landlord' thus: