:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITIOIN NOS. 3657, OF 2004 WRIT PETITIOIN NOS. 3657, OF 2004 WRIT PETITIOIN NOS. 3657, OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 OD 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 OD 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 OD 2004 -------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.K. Pradhan for the petitioners. Mr. S.V. Palsuledesai for respondent NO.1. Mr. R.G. Gite for respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 12.12.2005 . The petitioners by the present writ petition have challenged the order dated 21st February, 2004, in Reg.Civil Suit No. 567 of 2000 filed by the original plaintiff against the tenants for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. :2: 2. The petitioner’s application under Order 22 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, by the impugned order was rejected. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, basically contended that at this stage, it is necessary to join them as a legal heirs of the plaintiff-landlord without going into the controversy revolving around the Will in question. The Executor of the Will has been added as a party by order dated 8/10/2003, as a plaintiff. There is no need to join these heirs of the original plaintiff on record in the suit in question. 3. Heard. The Civil procedure Code prescribed the definition oflegal representative, which is prescribed as under; "Legal representative: means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the :3: deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued; There is no prima-facie no opposition pointed out on the record that they are not the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The controversy at this stage revolve around the execution of the will of the plaintiff dated 1st December, 1999 subject to finality of the Will, and or the controversy revolving around it. At this stage even, if there are some dispute between heirs of the original plaintiffs or there are rival claims based on the Will of the deceased plaintiff, in my view, there is no reason in the suit of landlord and tenant that these heirs of the plaintiff could not be impleaded as plaintiffs and or parties. Considering the contention as raised by the parties and even the reasoning given by the Court, I am of the view that the legal heirs of the plaintiff-landlord should be brought on the record in such :4: proceedings. 4. This view has support from (S. Charanjit Singh and another V. Bharatinder Singh and others) (AIR 1988 Punjab & Haryana 123) whereby, the Court after considering the order 22 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure code and based on AIR 1981 Punjab and Hariyana 130 full bench granted such application. 5. The learned Judge therefore, was wrong while rejecting these applications on the ground that the applicants/petitioenrs might challenge the decree, or they could file separate suit to establish their rights as legal heirs in respect of the property of the deceased plaintiff. The learned Judge was wrong in observing further that no rights of the plaintiffs would be affected, if they are not impleaded as plaintiff in this suit. The petitioners as noted above are claiming their right :5: of the property in question based on the natural succession. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that they are the only legal representatives of the plaintiffs. The definition of legal representative as reproduced above definitely covers the case of the petitioners and basically at this stage in the proceeding of landlord and the tenants. ( Kindu Sundari Devi V. Narendra Nath Mukherjee) (AIR 1929 Calcutta 27), the legal representative, if ready and willing to be brought on the record, and unless there are serious objections there is no reason that such representatives should not be impleaded as a party. In the present case only legal heirs, even though disputed by the otherside, if have moved the application for impleading their names as plaintiffs after the death of landlord-plaintiff, there is no reason that such application :6: should not be considered in the proceeding and basically at this stage of the proceeding. 7. In view of this, the present writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 21st February,. 2004 are quashed and set aside. Their application under Order 22 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is allowed. There shall be no cost. The writ petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii). (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]