In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3887 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 16, 2009 Dinesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Rajender Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul, whereby the application for temporary injunction was dismissed. In nutshell, the facts in the background of the case are that Niranjan Lal now deceased was a tenant in the shop since 31.5.1979 at a monthly rent of Rs.141/- under Mahadev Prasad. After the death of Mahadev Prasad, defendants No.1 and 2-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') became the landlords and sought ejectment against Niranjan Lal, who also expired during the pendency of the rent petition. At this, Suresh Chand, who was looking after the business, being the L.R. of Niranjan Lal applied for impleading him as legal representative of Niranjan Lal and he was impleaded as such. After contest, the ejectment order was passed against Suresh Chand and his sub-lettee Tek Chand, and the appeal filed against the said order of ejectment was also rejected. Now the petitioner Dinesh Kumar in order to thwart the execution of the order of ejectment preferred the suit claiming that he being the son of Niranjan Lal was also a necessary party, therefore, the order of ejectment dated 13.4.2005 obtained against him and respondents No.6 to 8 is not binding upon them. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was dismissed. Appeal preferred by him also met the same fate. Civil Revision No. 3887 of 2009 -2- Arguments heard. The record transpires that initially, Mahadev Prasad had filed a petition for ejectment against Niranjan Lal, thereafter, on the death of Mahadev Prasad, respondents No.1 and 2 were impleaded as his legal heirs. During the pendency of the rent petition Niranjan Lal died and on the application filed by Sudesh Chand, he was impleaded as party respondent along with sub-lettee. The petitioner knowing fully well that the rent petition was pending and he could contest the same on the death of his father did not prefer to join Rattan Lal etc. to claim that he is also co-legal representative of Niranjan Lal. It is also apparent that rent petition was allowed on merits and question of collusion does not arise. The appeal preferred against the order of eviction was also dismissed on 14.3.2008. Notwithstanding the fact that the tenancy is inheritable, it is the duty of the legal representative to apply for their impleadment as party respondent. The petitioner knew fully well that on the death of his father he could be impleaded as party, but he preferred to remain silent and allowed the ejectment order to be passed. Even he allowed the appeal to be dismissed. As regards the judgment delivered in case Smt. Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and others 1985 HRR 355 wherein it was observed that tenancy is heritable, I do not stand to differ with the view but it would be suffice to say that the person having knowledge of the fact that he is the legal representative could apply to contest the petition. It was also observed by this Court in case Manju Devi vs. Prem Parkash 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 230 as under :- “8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the L.Rs. of the deceased – Shiv Lal. However, it is also not in dispute that the other L.Rs. of the deceased -Shiv Lal i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 and Smt. Jagni Devi, wife of deceased- Shiv Lal were impleaded as the L.Rs. of the deceased. Therefore, the interest of the objector-petitioner was substantially represented. Even otherwise, Rules 2-A and 2-B have been inserted after Rule 2 of Order 22 CPC by the High Court amendment in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh and is applicable to Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. The said Rule 2-A and 2-B of Order 22 CPC read as under :- Civil Revision No. 3887 of 2009 -3- 2-A. Every advocate appearing in a case who becomes aware of the death of a party to the litigation (whether he appeared for him or not) must give intimation about the death of that party to the Court and to the person who is dominus litus. 2-B. The duty to bring on record the L.Rs of the deceased defendant shall be of the heirs of the deceased and not of the person who is dominus litus” A perusal of Rule 2-B of Order 22 CPC evidently shows that the duty to bring on record the L.Rs of the deceased defendant is on the heirs of the deceased and not who is dominus litus. Therefore, on the death of Shiv Lal who was the respondent in the ejectment petition, it was the duty of his L.Rs to get themselves impleaded as his L.Rs and it was not the duty of the landlord-respondent No.1 to implead the L.Rs. The landlord-respondent No.1 was dominus litus in the ejectment petition that had been filed. Therefore, in case the objector- petitioner did not get herself impleaded as L.R she cannot now claim that the order of ejectment is not executable against her. Even otherwise, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon has observed that there was an attempt on the part of the objector to prolong the already protracted litigation further.......” As such, both the courts below were correct in their observations that the petitioner had no prima facie case in his favour, balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour for grant of injunction. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. July 16, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge