CR No. 4410 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4410 of 2008 Decided on : 28-11-2008 Babita Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS Romesh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.2002 by which the ejectment proceedings against the petitioner preferred by the respondent were accepted. Shanti Devi had filed the petition for ejectement against one Nachhattar Singh on 26.7.1996 under the provisions of Section 13 B of the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The premises in question is a house. Despite due service Nachhattar Singh did not come present to contest the petition and he was directed to be proceeded ex parte on 2.9.96. Thereafter, an application was filed by Nachhattar Singh to set aside the ex parte proceedings which was accepted on 11.4.97. Written statement was filed by him contesting the petition and the issues were struck on 19.2.98. In this interregnum, Shanti Devi, the petitioner died and her legal representatives were brought on record. Respondent Nachhattar Singh also died and an application for bringing on record his legal representatives was CR No. 4410 of 2008 2 filed by the landlord in which the names of Raj Rani, widow of Nachhattar Singh and Bhupinder Singh, his son and Babita Rani, the present petitioner as legal representatives of deceased Nachhattar Singh were mentioned. Raj Rani filed a reply to this application and stated that Rupinder Kaur is also the daughter of the deceased. Vide orders dated 31.8.2001 all the four legal representatives of deceased Nachhattar Singh were brought on record but only Raj Rani chose to contest the eviction petition and other legal representatives did not appear in the case despite due service through munadi and were proceeded against ex parte on 21.12.2001. The eviction petition was allowed on 20.7.2002 after the proceedings were concluded. An appeal was filed by Raj Rani and Bhupinder Singh as legal representatives of deceased Nachhattar Singh but the same was dismissed on 1st May, 2003. Raj Rani had contested the proceedings throughout but at no point she asserted the fact that Babita Rani was a minor and that her interest has to be safeguarded by appointment of a Court Guardian. Even the application which was filed by the petitioner through her alleged guardian was malacious as Kamlesh Rani was not guardian of petitioner rather she was mother in law of the brother of the applicant, even though the petitioner projected her to be her maternal aunt. In this view of the matter, the attempt by the petitioner to project herself as a minor by moving an application through her alleged guardian Kamlesh Rani seems only to an attempt to frustrate the earlier eviction orders passed against her and the legal representatives of Nachhattar Singh, who were the tenants in the house. Since no attempt was made to assert the minority of the petitioner and fact was deliberately concealed by Raj Rani, CR No. 4410 of 2008 3 mother of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition is totally devoid of any merit and proceedings initiated by the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. November 28 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge