Ajit Singh Zakhmi vs Nirmal Jindal

DR. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—In this revision petition refusal to amend the written statement of the tenant, during pendency of the appeal preferred by him against his eviction, in an eviction petition which had been preferred by the respondent-landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the ''Act''), is under challenge.

It has been claimed by the tenant that on the death of respondent-landlord, inter-alia, ground of personal necessity has become redundant and thus amendment in the written statement bringing all these facts was necessary and that the same has been wrongfully declined.

Counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, has urged that death of landlord, ipso-facto, does not annihilate the distance already covered by the landlord in seeking his eviction from the premises under tenancy and that legal gains so earned enure even for the legal heirs. Prayer for dismissal of the revision petition has been made.

Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the impugned order, grounds of revision and the attending circumstances.

Revisionist is a tenant on a shop which was owned by Jai Narain. Pursuant to an eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlord (RA No. 9 of 28.03.2006) eviction of the revisionist-tenant was ordered by the Rent Controller on 19.05.2011. Aggrieved with the said order revisionist-tenant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act. During pendency of the appeal, respondent-landlord Jai Narain died on 26.11.2011. An application (Annexure-P1) was moved by the tenant before the said Appellate Authority, wherein, permission was sought to amend the written statement with a view to introduce subsequent events, inter-alia, death of respondent Jai Narain. The said application was strongly opposed by the respondent-landlord vide reply (Annexure-P2). The said application has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order.

It is worth notice that Smt. Nirmal Jindal widow of Jai Narain (landlord) had preferred an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for her impleadment in the litigation; it was allowed on 24.03.2012 vide order (Annexure-P3). It is worth notice that the revisionist-tenant has not challenged the said order of 24.03.2012, whereby application of Smt. Nirmal Jindal for impleading her as legal heir of her husband (Jai Narain) in the proceedings, has been allowed.

Once the revisionist-tenant is fully in the know of the fact that Smt. Nirmal Jindal widow of the landlord has already emerged on the legal horizons of this appeal as the main stake-holder for and on behalf of the respondent-landlord, the proceedings can be taken as terminated as has been sought by the revisionist-tenant in the application for amendment of his written statement, completing ignoring the stand taken by the respondent-landlord as also by his widow after the death of the landlord. It has been contended that the litigations gains of the landlord enure for her. Plea of the tenant in amendment sought in the written statement is to terminate the proceedings in the appeal as also those which already stood adjudicated against him, resulting in his eviction from the premises.

Right, title or interest, if any, of the widow of the landlord on her impleadment as respondent in substitution to her husband-landlord, is to be determined. Counsel for the revisionist/tenent by citing Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, ; Chander Shekhar Vs. Bishan Devi, ; Sumathi Vs. Rabia 2012(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 205(Kerala High Court) & Seshambal (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Others, has urged that subsequent events which may come up during the pendency of the proceedings, are also to be considered by the Authorities under the Rent Act.

Supporting the plea of the petitioner-tenant that such subsequent events are to be taken into consideration, counsel for the respondent-landlord has urged that since the widow of the respondent/landlord has been allowed to join the proceedings in terms of order dated 14.03.2012, the Appellate Authority merely on account of death of respondent-landlord cannot summarily allow the appeal of the tenant holding that ground of personal necessity put forth by the respondent-landlord, Jai Narain is over with his death and that the petition preferred by him, where ejectment of the tenant had already been ordered against which he is in appeal, is rendered infructuous. Counsel for the respondent has heavily relied upon M/s. Gagan Traders and another Vs. Jaspreet Singh and another 2010(4) PLR 38 (P & H) wherein it was held that death of a landlord during pendency of the appeal under the Act does not result in dismissal of the petition for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that only premise to obtain ejectment had ended with the death of the landlord. In this authority cited by the respondent even authority Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, already cited by the Appellant-tenant had also been duly considered. Counsel for the respondent has further relied upon Speedline Agencies Vs. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, has held that death of a landlord after passing the order of eviction against the tenant, does not ipso-fact destroy the accrued right of eviction under the decree.

In view of the discussion made earlier since amendment sought by the tenant was not permissible in law and was thus unnecessary, the same was rightly declined.

However, it is made clear that rejection of amendment sought by the revisionist-tenant would not be construed to the affect that the pleas raised by the widow after her impleadment in the appeal substituting her husband-landlord (Jai Narain) would be acceptable without any proof in further enquiry by the Rent Controller, where the tenant would be a mute spectator.

It is rather ordered that the Appellate Authority would not deny the right of cross-examination to the revisionist-tenant if the substituted representative of the deceased respondent-landlord ventures to produce her evidence to support her claim towards further journey to be undertaken by her, if any, in addition to the distance already successfully travelled by her husband in the course of this litigational venture, which had resulted in eviction order against the tenant, against which the tenant presently is in appeal.

With these observations, there being no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.