EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS Vs. PARAMJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking deletion of name of defendant No.1 from memo of parties on account of her death on 19/1/2022, during pendency of the suit.

(2.) Defendant No.1 was married daughter of sole deceased tenant R.S. Sethi. Defendant No.2 is daughter of deceased defendant No.1.

(3.) It is stated in the application that suit for recovery of possession, use and occupation charges has been filed against defendants No. 1 and 2, primarily on the ground that after demise of original tenant late R.S. Sethi on 11/9/2009 in Canada, no tenancy rights could be said to have been inherited by defendant No.1 in terms of provisions of Sec. 2(j) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short) and further that, in addition thereto, defendant No.1 being married, was neither ordinarily residing with her father who was original sole tenant in suit premises at the time of creation of tenancy nor dependant upon him, and thus she could not claim to have inherited any tenancy right and, therefore, defendant No.1 was akin to that of a trespasser and further that even if her claim set up in the written statement, is taken to be correct then it was defendant No.1 only, in whose favour alone, tenancy rights could have been claimed to be inherited as on account of provisions of the Act tenancy cannot be further inherited by any legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1.