KISHAN CHAND Vs. PARMESHARI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision filed by Kishan Chand against the order dated June 6, 1975 of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, acting as the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by him and his deceased father Nanak Chand as having abated.

(2.) The facts of this case are that Parmeshri Dass is the owner of the shop in dispute and he let out the same to Nanak Chand son of Anant Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 23/- for a period of 11 months with effect from May 22, 1946, on the basis of a rent deed dated May 20, 1946, executed by him in his favour. The landlord Parmeshari Dass made an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for his ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and sub-letting the shop to Kishan Chand his son. Both Nanak Chand and Kishan Chand filed a joint written statement and they contested the petition. The Rent Controller held that the eviction ground of subletting was proved and by his order dated 19.8.1972, he passed eviction order against Nanak Chand and Kishan Chand in favour of the landlord. Both Nanak Chand and Kishan Chand filed an appeal against this order in the Court of the District Judge, Gurdaspur.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal Nanak Chand died on October 15, 1973. Kishan Chand appellant, who is the son of Nanak Chand, made an application on November 29, 1973, in the Appellate Court under Order 22, rule 3, read with rule II of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, to implead the legal representatives of Nanak Chand, appellant No. 1, whose names were given in the petition. Notice of this application was issued to the legal representatives. Parmeshari Dass landlord contested this application alleging that it is not maintainable as Nanak Chand was a statutory tenant and, therefore, his legal representatives had no right to continue the appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the legal representatives had no right to continue the appeal and, therefore, their names could not be brought on the record and the appeal must be dismissed as having abated. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal as having abated. Feeling aggrieved Kishan Chand sub-tenant filed this revision alleging that the decision of the Appellate Authority is wrong and incorrect, it may he set aside and the Appellate Authority may be directed to decide the appeal on merits after bringing the legal representatives of Nanak Chand on the file.