TRIBHUVAN DUTT Vs. JAI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by the tenant Tribhuvan Dutt being aggrieved by the order dated 1-4-2008 passed by the addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of appellant defendant under O. 21, R. 4, C. P. C. read with Section 3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1950.

(2.) THE learned trial Court has passed the eviction decree by allowing civil suit No. 130/94 (Jai Narayan v. Tribhuvan Dutt) on. 1-12-2005. The defendant tenant preferred the appeal before the learned first appellate court namely civil appeal No. 39/2006. During the pendency of the said appeal, the defendant tenant Tribhuvan Dutt expired on 29-5-2007 and upon his death his son Om prakash filed the said application under O. 22, R. 4, C. P. C. on 17-7-2007 seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of the Tribhuvan Dutt namely his wife Smt. Tulsi Devi and his three sons Om Prakash, jagdish Prakash and Jai Prakash. The plaintiff respondent filed reply to the said application contesting the same on 3-8-2007 and after hearing both the parties the learned first appellate, Court rejected the said application under O. 22, R. 4, C. P. C. read with section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rent Control Act, 1950. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned first appellate Court on 1-8-2008, said legal representatives-applicants have approached this Court by way of present misc. appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants Mr. K. S. Rathore vehemently submitted that the learned appellate Court has erred in rejecting the said application under O. 22, R. 4 read with Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act of 1950 as the wife arid three sons of defendant tenant Tribhuvan Dutt squarely fell within the definition of legal representatives as defined under Section 2 (11), C. P. C. and since the tenancy is a heritable right which devolved upon these four legal representatives of the deceased appellant tenant Tribhuvan Dutt, they were entitled to be brought on record and were entitled to same protection under the Rent Control Act, 1950 as the appellant defendant was and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 1-4-2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside.