RAM KALEWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. UDAY SHANKAR TRIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Samastipur in Eviction Appeal No. 4 of 1998 whereby and whereunder it has been held that on death of Anugrah Narain Singh the appeal has abated as the appeal is to be construed to have been filed by Anugrah Narain Singh himself alone and, as such, the whole appeal should be construed as dismissed.

(2.) THE eviction appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1989. The plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit for eviction of Anugrah Narain Singh stating him to be the monthly tenant in the suit premises but he had defaulted in making payment and that he had sublet it to the defendant no. 2 the District Congress Committee (I) who was represented through the President of the District Congress Committee (I) and at the relevant time it is admitted fact that Anugrah Narain Singh was the President of the District Congress Committee (I) of Samastipur. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the defendant no. 1 Anugrah Narain Singh is not the tenant in his personal capacity but the tenancy was taken by him for and on behalf of the District Congress Committee as its President. To that extent an issue had also been framed but after adjudication it was held that Anugrah Narain Singh was the tenant and as he defaulted, then decree for eviction was granted. An appeal was filed by Anugrah Narain Singh as appellant no. 1 and the name of District Congress Committee (I) was also there as appellant no. 2 representing the same by the former, President namely, Anugrah Narain Singh himself. During the pendency of the appeal i.e. eviction Appeal No. 4/98 Anugrah Narain Singh died. His heirs had not come up for substitution rather one Ram Kalewar Pd. Singh filed a petition for his substitution as an appellant as in the name and style of working President of District Congress Committee (I) Samastipur.That substitution petition has been vehemently objected to. The learned court below had dismissed the petition for substitution holding that only Ram Anugrah Narain Singh has filed the appeal in his personal capacity as the vakalatnama is there only in his name and that the District Congress Committee (I) did never file the appeal as no vakalatnama had been filed for and on behalf of the District Congress Committee (I) so the appeal was held to be abated as no heirs of Anugrah Narain Singh had filed substitution petition and as there was no other appellant the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate appearing for and on behalf of respondent submitted that only because the name is appearing in the District Congress Committee (I) in the memo of appeal and if the same is not being represented by the proper person then it cannot be said that the District Congress Committee (I) had also preferred an appeal. His submission is that Anugrah Narain Singh was not the President when appeal was filed of the District Congress Committee (I) and as such he had no capacity to represent the District Congress Committee (I) as former President. In that way his submisson is that there is definitely a right decision given by the appellate court in dismissing the appeal as a whole. On perusal of the copy of the memo of appeal the judgment delivered by the court below and also the copy of the petition filed for substitution/amendment of the memo of appeal I find that there is some force in the submission of Mr. C.R. Sinha appearing for and on behalf of the respondent.