SUNITA JAIN Vs. DHYAN CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 22nd April, 1988, whereby the application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner Raj Kumari was dismissed.

(2.) Raj Kumari one of the landlord-petitioners died on 20th October, 1987. Sunita Jain claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased filed the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased. The said application was contested by the tenant Dhyan Chand. Sunita Jain appeared in the witness-box in support of her claim and there was no rebuttal thereto. In spite of the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Sunita Jain has failed to prove herself to be the only legal representative of Raj Kumari deceased. Thus dismissed her application Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that her statement has been misread by the learned Rent Controller and there being no rebuttal, the application should have ben allowed.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The Statement of Sunita Jain has been read in this Court. She categorically stated that she is the only daughter of Raj Kumari deceased. The tenant did not come in the witness box to deny this fact. Thus the whole approach of the learned Rent Controller is illegal improper and it has unnecessarily delayed the proceedings.