CHAMAN LAL Vs. SHEELA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Parma Nand was the tenant in the property in dispute in the year 1947. He died in the year 1948. After his death, his heirs were in occupation of the same. The landlord-respondent No. 1 purchased this property from its original owner on 18.6.1963. In the year 1970 she filed an application for ejectment of the heirs of Dr. Parma Nand who were treated as tenants and who were in occupation of the property on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The order of ejectment was ultimately passed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority upholding the aforesaid ground of eviction. Civil Revision filed by the heirs of Dr. Parma Nand, who were impleaded as respondents to the ejectment application, was dismissed by this Court and their special leave petition was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Thereafter respondent No. 1 in execution of the order of ejectment took possession of the property. It has been stated by the learned counsel that the old construction was demolished and a new building has been constructed in its place.

(2.) THE present objection petition under Order 21, Rules 99, 97 and read with Rules 98 and 101 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in the year 1983 by the present appellants stating that they being the sons of Dr. Parma Nand were also his heirs in addition to those who were impleaded as respondents in the ejectment application. Since they were not made parties to the same nor were they afforded opportunity to contest the ground of eviction, the order of ejectment is not binding on them. The objection petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. An appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 12.9.1986.

(3.) I do not find it necessary to go into this question of law for the obvious reason that after the ejectment of heirs of Dr. Parma Nand, who were in occupation of the property, on the ground that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, its old construction was removed and in its place a new building has been erected. So, the corpus of the dispute is no longer in existence. The objection raised, which have culminated in this appeal are, therefore, a futile exercise.