WAS DEV Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Budh Ram was the tenant of the respondents. A petition for his ejectment from the premises in dispute was filed before the learned Rent Controller, Hissar. This petition was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, Budh Ram died and his legal representatives, the present appellants, put in petition for being brought on record. This petition was dismissed on the ground that Budh Ram being a statutory tenant the tenancy left by him was not heritable. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the objections filed by them should be heard as a suit in accordance with the principle contained in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that a notice for execution should have been issued to them. There is no merit in these submissions. An executing Court can treat an execution as a suit only if it has the jurisdiction to try a civil suit. A Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has not been invested with the jurisdiction to try a civil suit. Under these circumstances, the objections raised on behalf of the appellants could not have been converted into a suit.

(2.) On the second point also, there appears to be no substance in the plea raised on behalf of the appellants because they being the heirs of a statutory tenant could not inherit the tenancy. Under these circumstances, no notice was required to be issued to them especially when the execution was taken out within one year. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.