CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2010. Nanak Singh --Petitioner vs. Ajay Kumar Mahajan -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms.Puja Chopra,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.V.K.Sandhir,Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Bishan Dass was a tenant of the petitioner on shop No.1365/III situated at Chowk Baba Bhouriwala, Amritsar, at a monthly rent of Rs.15/- in which he was running a Ration Depot. The petitioner sought his ejectment from the demised premises on various grounds, but the Rent Controller, Amristar, vide his order dated 22.4.2006, dismissed the ejectment petition which was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal dated 09.5.2006. During the pendency of the appeal, tenant Bishan Dass expired on 28.10.2008. According to the petitioner, Bishan Dass was issueless and CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) 2 his wife had predeceased him. Therefore, he had no legal representative. The petitioner filed an application before the Appellate Authority on 27.4.2009 under Order 22 Rule-4-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,CPC) to appoint an officer of the Court to represent the estate of the deceased tenant and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to him. On that date, the respondent filed an application to be impleaded as a legal representative of tenant Bishan Dass claiming himself to be his nephew. He also claimed his right by way of a Will dated 20.7.2007, purported to have been executed by tenant Bishan Dass in his favour. The Court below, vide the impugned order dated 5.2.2010 dismissed the application of the petitioner and allowed the respondent to be impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased tenant Bishan Dass. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed by the landlord/petitioner in which the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that tenant Bishan Dass did not have any issue and his wife had predeceased him and there is no one to run his shop, therefore, in terms of Order 22 Rule 4-A of CPC, the Court should have appointed an officer of the Court to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to him. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the respondent is the nephew of the tenant Bishan Dass and being Class II heir, he is entitled to inherit his tenancy rights of the demised premises. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Before adverting to their contentions, it would be relevant to CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) 3 refer to the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4-A of the CPC which are reproduced below:- “Procedure where there is no legal representative – (1) If, in any suit, it shall appear to the Court that any party who has died during the pendency of the suit has no legal representative, the Court may, on the application of any party to the suit, proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased person, or may be order appoint the Administrator-General, or an officer of the Court or such other person as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person for the purpose of the suit; and any judgment or order subsequently given or made in the suit shall bind the estate of the deceased person to the same extent as he would have been bound if a personal representative of the deceased person had been a party to the suit. (2) Before making an order under this rule, the Court- (a) may require notice of the application for the order to be given to such (if any) of the persons having an interest in the estate of the deceased person as it thinks fit; and (b) shall ascertain that the person proposed to be appointed to represent the estate of the deceased person is willing to be so appointed and has no interest adverse to that of the deceased person”. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in case, it appears to the Court that any party dying during the pendency of the suit, has no legal representative, the Court may,on the application of the party to the suit, either proceed in the absence of a person representing the CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) 4 estate of the deceased or may appoint an Administrator-General or an officer of the Court for the purpose of suit; any judgment or order which is specifically passed in the suit, shall bind the estate of the deceased but before making such an order, the Court is required to issue notice of the application to such a person, if any, having interest in the estate of the deceased and also ascertain that such a person who is proposed to be appointed as a legal representative has no interest adverse to the deceased person. In fact, the application filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived because in the application, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an officer of the Court for the purpose of handing over vacant possession of the demised premises to him on account of death of deceased tenant Bishan Dass, who has left his heavenly abode without leaving any heir. No such application is maintainable under Order 22 Rule 4-A of CPC because under the said provisions, the Court has two options, either to proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased or may appoint an officer of the Court to represent the estate of the deceased tenant but in no case, the Court could be asked for delivery of vacant possession immediately on the death of the tenant who has left behind no heir because Order 22 Rule 4-A of CPC provides that the Court has to decide the suit, only then the matter could be considered as prayed for by the petitioner. In the present case, ejectment petition filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Rent Controller. He has to establish the grounds set up in appeal, challenging the order of the Rent Controller before he could ask for vacant possession of the demised premises on CR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) 5 account of death of the tenant Bishan Dass having no heir. Other aspect of the matter is that the respondent had filed an application before the Court below claiming himself to be legal representative, being nephew of deceased Bishan Dass. The Court below though has not passed the impugned order in a manner befitting an officer of the rank of Addl.District Judge as she had only mentioned authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellant in para No.4 and the authorities cited by the respondent in para No.5 and thereafter without discussing any of the authorities, the application has been decided, however, insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, the tenancy of non-residential premises devolves upon the heir of the deceased tenant in accordance with general law of succession and for that matter, nephew being Class II heir, as per Schedule of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has rightly been impleaded as legal representative to represent the estate of the deceased. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Court below except for the manner in which the order has been passed by the Court. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. July 21,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge