KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. GURCHARNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) A petition, under Section 14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, was filed by the respondents-landlords against late Shri Ramji Dass, seeking his eviction, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant (said Ramji Dass) had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of 12 months, after the commencement of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. During the pendency of the petition, Ramji Dass died. His widow, petitioner-appellant Kaushalya Devi, was brought on record as his LR. The Rent Controller allowed the petition, holding that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months, after coming into force of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. Appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority noticed that besides the widow, three sons and three daughters of Ramji Dass were also his legal representatives and held that those sons and daughters were required to be brought on record, being necessary party. Consequently, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the matter to him for deciding the same afresh. The Rent Controller then impleaded all the sons and daughters of the deceased as respondents. Parties were allowed to adduce evidence once again. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence, again passed the order of eviction on the aforesaid ground. Appeal filed against the said order by the revision petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the present revision petition is directed.

(3.) THE first submission made by the learned counsel is that after the remand of the case the newly added respondents, i.e. sons and daughters of Ramji Dass, were not afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses of the landlords, who had been examined prior to the remand of the case.