VED PARKASH Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original defendant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction against him. The respondent -plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The suit property is a shop. It was originally let out to one Dalip hand. Dalip Chand passed away sometime in 1976. It is contended by the respondent -plaintiff that after the death of Dalip Chand, the defendant/present appellant has unauthorisedly occupied the premises/The plaintiff, therefore, seeks possession and ancillary relief.

(2.) The appellant -defendant by his written statement contended that he acts as a 'Karinda' (as a representative of the mother of Dalip Chand who had become the tenant as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973, (briefly stated Act of 1973). He further claims that Dalip Chand during his life time had executed a will dated 27.8.1977 and as per that will he bequeathed the tenancy right in the shop in favour of the said defendant.

(3.) In addition to the above contention, he has also raised technical objection that since Basheshwari Devi, the mother of deceased Dalip Chand had become a statuary tenant after the death of Dalip Chand, she should have been impleaded as a party to the suit. On this premises it was contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of non -joinder of necessary party.