SUBODH BHASIN Vs. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order recorded by the learned City Judge, Jammu dated 2-5-2002 passed with respect to an application filed in civil original suit for ejectment of a shop titled as Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Prithvi Raj pending decision before the trial Court. Defendant namely, Prithvi Raj expired on 20-1-1998 and his legal heir Smt. Krishna Bhasin, his sons Subhash Bhasin, Avinash Bhasin and his daughters namely, Usha, Kiran Kohli and Sushma Sawhney came to be substituted as defendants in his place. It further appears that Subash Bhasin and Avinash Bhasin so substituted as defendants alongwith their mother and sisters in place of their deceased father relinquished their claim with respect to the suit shop in favour of their mother Smt. Krishna Bhasin. Vinod Kumar Gupta who happens to be the son of Subodh Bhasin, legal heir of deceased defendant Prithvi Raj came to seek his impleadment as defendant in the said suit for ejectment of the shop on the ground that he is in occupation of the suit shop after the death of his grand-father Prithvi Raj and has been transacting business from this shop. His further claim is that during life time of his grand-father, the deceased defendant, he associated himself with him in the business from the said shop. The learned trial Court after hearing the petitioner-revisionist came to reject the petition after holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to be impleaded as defendant in the suit in question.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IF the aforesaid principles are applied to the case in hand, I find that the revisionist has no claim to be impleaded as defendant in the suit in question. As indicated suit in which revisionist seeking his impleadment is one for ejectment of the shop under the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the plaintiff-landlord against his tenant who expired during the pendency of the suit. For the maintenance of the suit for ejectment under the Act, sine-qua- non is that from the facts and circumstances pleaded in the plaint, it must make out a relationship of landlord and tenant. If that is not so, any other enquiry in the matter shall be beyond the scope of the Court exercising powers under the said Act. The admitted case of the parties is that the deceased- defendant was holding the suit shop belonging to the plaintiff as tenant. The word "Tenant" is defined under Section 2(6) of the Act which means any person by whom or on whose account rent or any money liable to be paid for the use of house or shop and it includes the legal representatives of such a person, but does not include a person who is placed in occupation of such house or shop without the consent of the landlord. It is celebrated law that the tenancy is a heritable right, it devolves upon the heirs of the deceased-tenant. In this behalf the trial Court had placed reliance on Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, 1985(1) RCR(Rent) 459 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 796. This being the position of law, after the death of defendant Prithvi Raj, his tenancy right of suit shop has devolved upon his widow, sons and daughters as per ordinary law of succession, being Class-1 heirs u/S. 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 who stand substituted as defendant in place of said deceased-defendant. The revisionist being the son's son of the deceased-defendant cannot inherit the tenancy right of the suit shop under the said Hindu Succession Act in presence of his parental grand-mother, uncles and aunts, the persons already brought on record and substituted as defendants in place of deceased-defendant. This being so, the revisionist has no direct interest in the matter of suit. It is not the case of the revisionist that he has been put in occupation of the suit shop by his grand-father the deceased-tenant with the consent of the plaintiff the landlord.