AVTAR SINGH Vs. KESHO PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Bishan Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. His estate was inherited by Atma Singh who inducted Chattar Singh as a tenant on the property in question by virtue of a rent note dated August 19, 1956 with an authority to sub-let. This rent note was only for a period of eleven months. Chattar Singh let out the property to Kesho Parshad, respondent herein, on March 12, 1981. Chattar Singh thereafter filed a petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking ejectment of the respondent, sub-tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The petition was contested by the respondent. It was alleged by him that he was not the tenant under Chattar Singh but was a direct tenant under Atma Singh. After the issues had been framed in the ejectment petition, Chattar Singh died on January 14, 1991. Avtar Singh, petitioner herein, son of Chattar Singh on the strength of a Will dated December 12, 1990 in his favour, moved an application on March 9, 1991 for being impleaded as a petition in place of Chattar Singh, being his heir. This application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated May 4, 1991 and while dismissing the application, learned Rent Controller also dismissed the ejectment petition having abated. This is how the present revision came to be filed by Avtar Singh son of Chattar Singh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that tenancy being heritable, right to sue survived to the petitioner and the learned Rent Controller acted illegally in dismissing the application and resultantly the ejectment petition. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Chattar Singh was a tenant under rent note dated August 18, 1956 only for a period of eleven months and as the property had been sub-let in the year 1991 without the permission of the landlord, he had no right to seek ejectment of the respondent. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent has no merit. It is not to be seen at this stage, whether the petition for ejectment filed by Chattar Singh is or is not competent or whether he is entitled to seek ejectment or not. The only question here is, whether Avtar Singh son of Chattar Singh is entitled to be brought on record to continue the proceedings after the death of his father, Chattar Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent still raised another contention that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was appealable as by the said order, the ejectment petition had also been dismissed after dismissal of the application seeking impleadment as on heir. I am not inclined to accept this contention as well, in view of the observations of J.V. Gupta, J. (as his Lordship then was) in M/s. Shivalik Poultry Farm and others v. Indian Bank, 1985(1) PLR 746. It was held therein that revision against the order of the trial court dismissing application of the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and at the same time decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by the said order, was maintainable though the order decreeing the suit was admitted appealable.