O.N. Sharma vs Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia that the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Rent Controller, whereby widow and two daughters of deceased/landlord were permitted to continue with eviction petition, as legal heirs, be set aside, along with order whereby they were permitted to amend eviction petition.

Facts of the present case are glaring. They depict sorry state of affairs. In the present case, eviction petition instituted on ground of bonafide personal necessity, was not decided even for long period of nine-years. During long pendency of the eviction petition, litigation could not conclude and the landlord expired. The deceased/landlord was medical practitioner. He wanted demised premises to set-up is own clinic. His widow, legal heir is also a medical practitioner. She was practicing, along with her husband.

In the application filed for amendment, it has been specifically stated that she has also been practicing, along with her husband.

The eviction petition, in the present case, was instituted before Rent Tribunal on 24.08.2006. The landlord - Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu, who instituted eviction petition, died on 01.01.2015.

The application was filed on 27.02.2015 by his widow Dr. Vimla under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying inter alia that she, along with her two daughters, namely Ira Upmanyu and Iti Upmanyu be impleaded as legal heirs.

In the application, following specific plea were raised:-

Vide impugned order dated 20.10.2015, Rent Tribunal had accepted application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. and permitted them to continue with the eviction petition. A further liberty has also been granted to them to amend eviction petition.

Mr. Devendra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in the eviction petition, it was nowhere stated by landlord that his wife is also practicing, along with him as a Medical Practitioner. In the eviction petition, it was only stated that the premises is required for personal-bonafide-necessity of deceased/landlord - Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Phul Rani and Others Vs. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, , to contend that personal-bonafide-necessity cease after the death of landlord and the legal heirs have to file a separate eviction petition to prove their personal-bonafide-necessity.

A further reliance has been placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in Raghunath Prasad Vs. Muna Lal, reported in R.L.R. 1987 (11) 614.

A perusal of Para 7 of judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court relied upon in Phul Rani and Others (supra) reveals that the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the survival of the right to sue on the death of a plaintiff is an issue that has often to be solved on a permutation of several facts and circumstances.

No maxim has been laid in that judgment that after death of landlord, right to sue will not survive to the legal heirs of the landlord.

So far second judgment relied upon is concerned, same is not applicable on the facts of the case. In that case, it was held that neither there is any evidence nor any pleadings that two sons of deceased were carrying on the same business along with deceased landlord.

In the present case, it has been specifically stated that widow is a Doctor and she was practicing, along with her husband.

In the socio-economic Indian milieu family is one unit. The right to succeed to property and continue with proceedings flow to the legal heirs. Hyper-technical rules cannot triumph over the substantial justice. The discretion has been validly exercised by Rent Controller and, hence, no interference is warranted, while exercising jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, present petition, being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.

Upon dismissal of main petition, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.