NAURATI DEVI Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURAJ Bhan is one of the legal representatives of the tenant who had taken a shop on rent form the petitioner. Suraj Bhan was not impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that tenancy of non-residential premises was not heritable under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Harish Chander v. Kirpa Ram, 1986(1) RCR 545, that tenancy with regard to the non-residential premises is also heritable. Accordingly the Court below was right in allowing Suraj Bhan, legal representative of the tenant, to be impleaded as party to the suit.

(2.) IN this view of the matter, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.