CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2008 Pushpa and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Gurbax Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The respondent-landlords had filed this petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) averring that the house in question was taken on rent by Darshan Lal (since deceased) at the rate of Rs.110/- per month. The petitioners, being legal heirs of Darshan Lal, were stated to be in possession of the house in question situated at Banga. They were in possession of the portion of the house and their eviction was sought on the ground that respondent Gurbax Singh had retired from CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 } service of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board on 30.4.2005. Thereafter, he intends to settle permanently at Banga Town and as such, needed the accommodation for his and use of his married son, who is further blessed with a son. Necessary averment that except for this house, the landlords did not have any other residential house in Banga Town and have not vacated any residential house in the Banta Town etc. were also made. The ground of building being unfit was also raised to seek eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners appearing in response to the notice raised certain preliminary objections, mainly, regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts. Otherwise the relationship of landlords and tenants was admitted and it was pleaded that the petitioners being legal heirs of Darshan Lal had inherited this tenancy. The fact that Gurbax Singh, respondent, had retired from service was disputed and so too the need of the premises for his personal use. It was submitted that the landlord was residing in Himachal Pradesh where he has build his own house and none of his family member ever lived in the part of a house, which is in occupation of the petitioners as tenants. It is further pleaded that required ingredients of Section13-A of the Act are not fulfilled. The assertion in regard to the building being unfit and unsafe was also denied. The Rent Controller, however, considered the entire aspect in detail and has directed the eviction of the petitioners from the demised house, giving them two months' time to vacate the premises. CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 } Mr.Vikas Bahl, learned counsel for the petitioners, has attacked the finding basically on three grounds. He would first contend that the order of retirement as produced on record is issued by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, and as such, would be invalid on the ground that appointing authority of respondent, Gurbax Singh, was Chief Engineer and, thus, the aspect of retirement was not properly established from the evidence and documents placed on record. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and others Vs. Kashmir Singh Bhullar, 1996 (1) RCR (Rent) 671. This was a case where landlord was a member of P.C.S Judicial and sought ejectment of the tenant on the strength of a certificate of retirement issued by Registrar of the High Court. This Court held that certificate not to be valid on the ground that his appointing/removing authority is the State Government and that the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant was required to produce a certificate of retirement, which ought to be signed by the person who was competent to remove him from service. It is on this basis submitted before me that the certificate of retirement, as produced, would not be a valid certificate to be taken into consideration to entertain this petition under Section 13-A of the Act. In this regard, the Court has referred to the cross- examination of Gurbax Singh, respondent, who disclosed that he had earlier joined the services of Himachal Pradesh MPP in the year 1971, which was merged with the Electricity Board i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. Upon this, the Secretary became the CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 } removing authority of respondent, Gurbax Singh. Landlord, Gurbax Singh has also disclosed that Secretary is his appointing as well as removing authority once he has become an employee of the Electricity Board. He has further pointed out the Chief Engineer is no longer his appointing or authority to terminate his services. The entire line of submission as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners would, thus, fall flat. The counsel for the petitioners would then submit that all the legal representatives were required to be impleaded on the death of Darshan Lal, the tenant and that having not been done, no effective relief could be granted to the respondents. The contention is that Darshan Lal has left behind two daughters, two sons and a widow. The respondent-landlord failed to implead the daughters of Darshan Lal, making the petition bad for non-joinder of necessary party. In this regard, the counsel would refer to the case of Smt.Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 796(1). It has been held in this case, decided under the Delhi Rent Control Act, that statutory tenancy in respect of a commercial premises is heritable and heirs of the statutory tenant are entitled to the same protection against the eviction as afforded to the tenant under the Act. It is further observed in this case that the heirs of the deceased tenant in the absence of any provision in the Rent Act to the contrary will step into the position of the deceased tenant and all the rights and obligations of the deceased tenant including the protection afforded to the deceased tenant under the Act will devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. From this, the counsel would CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 } contend that the tenancy on the death of Darshan Lal would devolve on all the legal heirs including the married daughters and since they were not impleaded as L.Rs, the relief of eviction could not have been granted against the remaining legal heirs who were so impleaded in place of late Darshan Lal. In this regard, reference is made to Biswadev Mukherjee Vs. Dr.Gourmohan Das De, 1998 (1) RCR (Rent) 603 where suit for eviction against some of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant was filed and no evidence was forthcoming that other legal heirs had surrendered the tenancy. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable and further observed that if some of the legal heirs of the tenant are left out, in that event no effective decree of eviction can be passed. Support is also sought from the observations made in the case of Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit Vs. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2053. This was a case where on a death of a tenant, leaving behind widow and two sons, landlord had filed a suit for eviction where one of the son was not impleaded. Exparte decree was passed in favour of the landlord and it was held that this will not bind the respondent who was not a party and this decree can not be kept alive against two other tenants. The record shows that Darshan Lal had left behind two married daughters, who were not impleaded as parties on the death of said Darshan Lal. The respondent-landlord would rely on the ratio of law held in the case of Veer Piari Vs. Sudershan Kumar and others, 1990 (1) RCR 375 where it was held that married daughter of the deceased tenant, who lived separately, would not be a CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 6 } necessary party. It is on record, as admitted by Pushpa (petitioner No.1) that her elder daughter is married at Mandi Gobindgarh whereas the second daughter is married at Banga and both are residing happily in their matrimonial house. The law laid down in Biswadev Mukherjee 's case (supra) was distinguished by the Court by observing that rent receipt in the said case in the name of tenant included the legal heirs not impleaded as respondents. It was in this background perhaps their being impleaded as a party were held vital and to say that they had not surrendered their tenancy rights and, thus, were necessary party. It has rightly been observed by the Court that the daughters are not in possession of any tenanted premises and were concededly living happily away from the house under tenancy. They being not in possession of any part of the tenanted premises would not be necessary party only because they happen to be daughters of the deceased tenant. They have also not come forward to dispute the claim of the respondent-landlord. In these facts, which are peculiar to the present case, they can not be considered to be necessary party to have any effect on the order of eviction as made. Counsel has then made an attempt to submit that the need of the landlord as projected is not bonafide as he is having a residential house in Himachal Pradesh where he is having his ration card as well. Counsel would also point out that one married son of the respondent-landlord is staying at Delhi and as such, the need projected by the respondent-landlord for staying in the house is not bonafide. These are the mere assertions made by the counsel and CIVIL REVISION NO.3184 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 7 } would not find any support from the evidence or material on record. Rather, in cross-examination, Pushpa (petitioner No.1) admitted that one of the son of the landlord, Gurbax Singh, is residing on the first floor whereas the second son also visits Banga after every six months and so also his daughter. It was also conceded that respondent-landlord has no other residential house in Banga. In this view of the matter, this line of submissions pursued by counsel for the petitioner would not impress me to interfere in the finding recorded by Rent Controller in regard to the bonafide need. I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned order and would, thus, dismiss the revision petition as it lacks merit. July 08 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE