CR No.1087 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1087 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2011. Doaba Tent House ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Kirpal Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against two orders, one passed on the application filed by the legal representatives of Maninder Singh (since deceased) to implead them as parties after his death which has been allowed vide order dated 16.11.2009 by the learned Rent Conroller, Chandigarh and the second passed on the application filed by the petitioner herein for leave to deliver the interrogatories and directing the respondents herein to deliver the same which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 28.08.2010. In short, Maninder Singh (since deceased) filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Maninder Singh had died. Consequently, an application was filed by his legal representatives to implead them as parties. The said application was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the original owner is Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and not Maninder Singh. Be that as it may, the learned Rent Controller allowed the said application on the ground that the legal representatives are required to be impleaded to pursue the eviction petition. After this order, another application was filed by the petitioner herein for disclosing the address of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. The said application was contested by the respondents herein in which it was alleged that a valid attorney was executed by Smt. Harbhajan Kaur who had further executed sub-attorney. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, who was earlier resident of House No.608, Sector-16, Chandigarh, had sold the said house and is now settled in London. The said CR No.1087 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the respondents herein are not required to disclose the whereabouts of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the original owner was Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, therefore, the legal representatives of Maninder Singh were not required to be impleaded as parties and consequently the landlord, who had filed the eviction petition, was required to disclose the address of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that all these questions are the questions of facts which are yet to be decided by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence, but the eviction petition was admittedly filed by Maninder Singh as landlord who admittedly has died, therefore, his legal representatives have a right to replace him by way of application for the purpose of pursuing the eviction petition. Insofar as the impugned order dated 28.08.2010 is concerned, the respondents herein had disclosed whatever information they had about the whereabouts of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur who after selling her house had settled in London. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition, which is otherwise filed after a long delay, is found without any merit and hence the same is hereby dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs. February 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE