DAVINDER KUMAR Vs. HASAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants who are aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority; have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The petition for eviction was filed against one Rattan Chand and petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein. The case of the respondent - land lord was that1 Rattan Chand became a tenant under him with respect to the petitioner premises and had sublet the same to petitioners No. l and 2 herein, who are his grand sons. The said Rattan Chand died during the pendency of the proceedings in 1986. Petitioners No.3 to 6 applied for coming on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Rattan Chand. The application was opposed by the respondent herein and the Rent Controller dismissed the application. On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order and brought on record the applicants as legal representatives and directed the Rent Controller to consider the question on the merits of the case. That order\ was challenged by the landlord in this Court in Civil Revision No.249 of 1939. The revision was dismissed by this Court with the following observations: "The adjudication of the case without the legal representatives of the First resp6ndent as parties to the proceedings will not be binding on them. Even though the landlord had at an earlier stage of the proceedings opposed the application filed by the legal representatives of the first respondent to be brought on record as parties to the proceedings, counsel for the landlord frankly admits that the adjudication of the case by the appellate authority without the legal representatives of the first respondent on record will not be effective against them and % would therefore further complicate the matter even after an order of eviction is passed against respondents 2 and

(3.) The only submission by the learned counsel is that the appellate authority itself should have impleaded the legal representatives of the first respondent and would have adjudicated the dispute between the parties without remanding the matter to the court of the Rent Controller. The first respondent died on 4.8.1986 during the pendency of the proceeding before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had no occasion for adjudication of the contention raised by the first respondent Now that the legal representatives have been impleaded an opportunity to adduce evidence -in support of the contention raised by the first respondent cannot be denied to them. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the appellate authority does not call for interference. The civil revision is dismissed."