C.R.No.6227 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6227 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 M/s Amar Steel Rolling Mills and another ...Petitioners vs Snehprabha Sierra and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Rakesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 9.4.2011 whereby Rent Controller has ordered to implead the legal representatives of Chanjju Singh Kanwal (since deceased), the landlord, in the ejectment petition pending against the petitioner. Chanjju Singh Kanwal predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an ejectment application against the petitioners from the demised premises on various grounds. The aforesaid Chanjju Singh Kanwal expired on 15.1.2011 leaving behind Krishan Kumari (wife), Om Parkash (son), Snehprabha Sierra (daughter) and Parveen Parkash Kanwal (son). An application was filed by Parveen Parkash Kanwal to implead him as legal representative of deceased Chanjju Singh Kanwal the landlord alleging therein that the aforesaid Chanjju Singh Kanwal died intestate leaving behind the above said legal representatives. Another application was filed by Snehprabha Sierra for impleading her as legal representative of Chanjju Singh Kanwal on the C.R.No.6227 of 2011 2 basis of a Will being sole legal heir. The aforesaid applications were contested by the petitioner-tenant but it may be relevant to state at this stage that relationship of the applicants and other family members with the deceased landlord was not disputed. Vide impugned order the Rent Controller ordered to implead Snehprabha Sierra and Parveen Parkash Kanwal as legal representatives of Chanjju Singh Kanwal. The relevant part of the impugned order reads thus:- “ I have considered the rival submission. Application for impleading LRs is duly supported by affidavit of the parties. Respective claims have been made. Whereas Parveen Parkash Kanwal applicant is claiming intestate succession. Applicant SnehPrabha Sierra is claiming succession on the basis of Will. In any case relationship amongst various applicants is not in dispute as even the family members have been duly mentioned. Respondent/tenant who is stranger to the family cannot misutilise the procedural la. He cannot compel the legal representative to settle the matter first and to proceed against him. Various judgments cited by tenant like Sahab Kaur vs. Avtar Singh & Ors. 2006(1) Civil Court Cases 31. Gangupati Savitramma & another 1991 Civil Court Cases 811 , cannot be applied to the extent whereby the scope of the litigation is enlarged. This litigation started by deceased Chajju Singh can be decided even if all the applicants are impleaded as LRs as the the case has reached almost at final stage. However, amongst the natural heir, there is no application on behalf of Krishan Kumari wife, Om Parkash son. Only Parveen Parkash and Snehprabha Sierra had come represent him. Hence only Snehprabha Sierra and Parveen Parkash are hereby impleaded as LRs of deceased Chajju Singh Kanwal and they are allowed to prosecute the litigation on his behalf. There is no need to decide the validity of Will in this litigation as same C.R.No.6227 of 2011 3 may be got decided in independent litigation between the parties. Rights of deceased Chajju Singh Kanwal are to be decided and not rights of various legal heirs amongst themselves. With these observation, both the applications are allowed and Snehprabha Sierra and Parveen Parkash Kanwal are hereby impleaded as LRs of Chajju Singh Kanwal petitioner to proceed with the litigation as legal representative of deceased”. Challenging the aforesaid order counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that before impleading respondents No.1 and 2 as legal heirs of Chanjju Singh Kanwal (deceased landlord) Rent Controller has not held any inquiry as envisaged under Order 22 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for determining as to who was the legal legal representative of the aforesaid deceased and, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the relationship of the respondent-applicants with Chanjju Singh Kanwal is not in dispute. Petitioner-tenant is a stranger to the family and cannot compel the legal representatives of the aforesaid landlord to settle the inter se dispute of inheritance first and then proceed against him. Moreover, the respondents have been impleaded as legal representatives of Chanjju Singh Kanwal landlord to proceed with the litigation and take it to its logical end. It has also been observed by the Rent Controller that the instant petition was being defended by Chanjju Singh Kanwal himself and almost is at the final stage. It is well settled that the inquiry under order 22 rule 5 CPC is limited to the extent of finding out, “ whether right to sue survives in any of the applicants” and with regard to this fact, there is no dispute between the C.R.No.6227 of 2011 4 parties. Therefore, the argument raised before this Court is without any merit and is liable to be rejected. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 13, 2011 rk