HARI CHAND Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANWARI Lal landlord-respondent had filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Darbari lal in the Court of the Rent controller, Sirsa. Hari Chand son of Darbari Lal tenant was also impleaded as respondent alleging him to be the sub-tenant. The ejectment was sought on the ground of subletting. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 5th October, 1976. Passed on order of ejectment against the tenant. Feeling aggrieved against the said order. Darbari Lal tenant filed an appeal under the Haryana Urban (control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) before the Appellate Authority. Hari Chand, the alleged sub-tenant, was impleaded as respondent in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Darbari Lal tenant died on 8th Nov. , 1976. Therefore, his son Hari Chand, who was already a party as an alleged subtenant, and his another son Gobind ram as well as Smt. Bachni widow of a predeceased so of Darbari lal made an application for being appointed as successors of the deceased tenant Darbari lal. In the application filed by them, it was settled that they were residing with the deceased and, therefore, they come within the definition of the tenant as defined in S. 2 (h) of the Act. This application was contested on behalf of the landlord respondent.

(2.) THE Appellate Authority, after recording the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that Hari Chand and Govind Ram were living separately from Darbari Lal deceased tenant and their business is also separate from him and consequently dismissed their application for impleading Hari Chand and Gobind Ram as legal representatives of Darbari Lal deceased. As regards Smt. Bachni, it was found that she being the widow of Darbari Lal's deceased son was residing with him and therefore, was entitled to be appointed as legal representative and therefore, an order appointive of Darbari Lal was passed. Feeling aggrieved against this order, Hari Chand and Gobind Ram have filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as a matter of fact the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Darbari Lal under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Civil P. C. and they do not claim any right under the definition of the term 'tenant' in Section 2 (h) of the Act which is to the following effect:- ""tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and in the event of such person's death, such of his heirs are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant except with the written consent of the landlord or person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by municipal, town or notified area committee. "