CR No.2598 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2598 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2011. Manjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Jaspal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.01.2011 by which the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] to bring to the notice of the learned Rent Controller that legal representatives of deceased Harbans Kaur were already brought on record in appeal vide order dated 11.06.2008, has been allowed. In brief, the original landlady, namely, late Harbans Kaur, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises, namely, shop No.15/1 along with its platform. The said eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 15.05.2006, against which an appeal was preferred by the tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord Harbans Kaur unfortunately expired and her sons (respondents herein) filed an application for impleading them as her legal representatives and the said application was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority on 11.06.2008. The said order remained unchallenged and ultimately CR No.2598 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** the appeal was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12.12.2008 and remanded the case back to the learned Rent Controller for deciding it afresh on merits. Before the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had taken a plea that Harbans Kaur had died, but still there is no application on record on behalf of her legal representatives, therefore, the proceedings are going on in favour of a dead person. In this background, the application was filed by the respondents by which it was brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller that they had already been brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Harbans Kaur vide order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application, which has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, suffers from material irregularity and illegality because in the eviction petition, there is no application filed by the respondents to implead them as legal repreentatives of deceased Harbans Kaur by moving an application. He also submits that he had also taken a plea in his reply to the application filed by the respondents that the present eviction petition has abated. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record with his able assistance. There is a total fallacy in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner when he submits that the legal repreentatives of the deceased Harbans Kaur (original landlady) have to move a separate application before the learned Rent Controller to bring them on record, who had already been brought on record in appeal vide order dated 11.06.2008 and the said order remained unchallenged. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. April 21, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge