RAMESH KUMAR Vs. ASHA MARWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAGUNATH Parshad father of respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and husband of respondent No. 3 was tenant of respondent No. 1 in her shop on the ground floor of building bearing Khana Sumari No. 201 situated in the abadi of Durgiana temple, Amritsar. After his death, the landlady filed against the petition No. 19 of 1982 on January 5, 1982. Learned Rent Controller ordered their eviction from the tenancy premises on May 19, 1986.

(2.) AN appeal against the aforesaid order of ejectment dated May 19, 1986 was filed before the learned Appellate Authority on June 12, 1986 purporting to be on behalf of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 but actually it was the petitioner before this Court alone who had authorised the learned counsel to file it and there was no authority with the learned counsel for doing so on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 9. For curing this defect in the frame of the appeal, the present petitioner applied before the learned Appellate Authority that respondent Nos. 2 to 9 before this Court, who were appellants before it may be transplanted as respondents Nos. 2 to 9 in the appeal. Learned Appellate Authority vide its assailed judgment dated June 11, 1987 declined the request and dismissed the appeal holding that one of the tenants alone could not come up in appeal before it against the decision of the learned Rent Controller dated May 19, 1986, rendered jointly against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9. Present Civil Revision No. 2680 to 1987 is directed against this order of the learned Appellate Authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred me to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the observations made in (i) Mahabir Prasad v. Jaga Ram and others, A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 742; and (ii) Ram Chanda and others v. Amar Singh, Advocate Karnal, 1973 Revenue Law Reporter 716 and urged that the learned Appellate erred in declining the prayer made to it for transplanting appellant Nos. 2 to 9 as respondent Nos. 2 to 9 because their learned counsel did not have the requisite authority from them for filing the appeal on their behalf and more so when their interests in the tenancy premises were one with the first appellant and the appellate Authority was fully empowered to give appellant No. 1 the relief claimed by him in the appeal even in their absence, from the array of parties, to the appeal.