IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7263 of 2006. Smt. Prem Devi Agarwal wife of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal and Another V E R S U S Smt. Rama Devi wife of Shri Dr. Mahendra Singh Choudhary and Another Date Of Order ::: 30/05/2008. Present Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Shri Ashok Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners. Shri Manish Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents ##### By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter has come-up for orders on the application filed by the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order dated 18.09.2006 passed by this Court, but the learned counsel for both the parties contended that the final arguments itself may be heard and the case be disposed of finally, therefore, final arguments were heard in the case and the case is being disposed of finally. Plaintiff Smt. Rama Devi instituted a suit for eviction against the original tenant Madan Lal, who died on 06.10.1984 and in his place his wife and daughter namely; Smt. Mangali Devi and Smt. Mewa Bai were substituted, as defendant Nos.1/1 and 1/2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Smt. Rama Devi also died and in her place her husband Mahendra Singh Choudhary was substituted. The defendant No.1/1 Smt. Mangali Devi also died during the pendency of the suit on 08.02.2006. Counsel for the defendant informed the trial Court about the death of Smt. Mangali Devi and, thereafter Counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4, C.P.C. contending therein that her legal representative i.e. Smt. Mewa Bai is already on the record, therefore, the name of Mangali Devi may be deleted from the array of the defendants. The said prayer of the plaintiff was contested by the counsel for the defendant and he contended that there are two other legal representatives of deceased Smt. Mangali Devi i.e. Smt. Prem Kumar, her daughter-in-law and Smt. Anju Agarwal, her grand- daughter, therefore, they may be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased defendant Smt. Mangali Devi. The learned trial Court after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties passed an order dated 04.08.2006 on the application of the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4, C.P.C. that Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal, both are not tenants within the definition of the tenant under the provisions of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, therefore, their names cannot be substituted. The said order has been challenged by the defendants in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal, both were the legal representatives of Smt. Mangali and, the learned trial Court committed an illegality in observing that they are not tenants within the definition of tenant, as defined under the provisions of Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 at this stage. He, therefore, contended that a proper course would have been to substitute their names in place of Smt. Mangali Devi and thereafter to frame an issue as to whether Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal fall within the definition of the tenants and, only thereafter the matter could have been disposed of finally. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended that Smt. Mewa Bai was already on the record, as defendant No.1/2, being legal heir of the original tenant i.e. Mandan Lal and deceased defendant Smt. Mangali Devi. Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal were not doing any business in the rented premises with deceased, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly passed the order dated 04.08.2006 that they are not tenant, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioners may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned order in the light of their submissions. The learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal, both were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Smt. Mangali Devi, but the question, which arises from the impugned order, for decision is as to, whether they were falling within the definition of “tenants”, as defined under Section 3 (vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. This question will be considered only after adducing relevant evidence in this regard, therefore, at this stage, the learned trial Court committed an illegality in not substituting the name of Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal, as legal representatives of deceased defendant Smt. Mangali Devi. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2006 passed by the trial court is set aside. Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal are ordered to be substituted in place of deceased defendant Smt. Managali Devi. The trial Court will frame an issue as to whether Smt. Prem Kumar and Smt. Anju Agarwal fall within the definition of “tenants”, as defined under Section 3 (vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 and will proceed with the suit further in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that any observations in the present order will not influence the trial Court in any manner whatsoever. The cost is made easy. In view of above order, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India and, that stands disposed of. The learned counsel for both the parties agree that the suit relates to the year, 1975, therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to try and decide the suit itself as early as possible preferably within a period of six-months. Ordered accordingly. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously and will try to decide the same preferably within a period of six-months. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance thereof. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/