JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23/4/98 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Laxamangarh district Sikar in Civil suit No. 28/93 whereby the application for abatement of the suit filed by defendant petitioner has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against Ganpat, the father of the defendant, on the ground of default in payment of rent and arrears and later on by way of amendment another ground of subletting was also added. The subletting was alleged to be done in favour of Ramgopal son of Ganpat. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments of the written statement. The defendant Ganpat expired on 27.2.98 leaving behind his LRs wife, daughters and sons including Ram Gopal. 3. The plaintiff moved the application under O.I.R. 10 read with 151 Civil Procedure Code for implealding the petitioner as a party. The eviction related from the premises consisting of the shop. 4. The trial Court had accepted the application for impleading the petitioner as party vide order dated 23.4.98. The petitioner appeared before the court and moved two applications on 26.2.98 under Order 22 Rule 5 and 9 Civil Procedure Code for abatement of the suit, which application was rejected vide impugned order. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. 5. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had acted illegally while dismissing the application and for not declaring the suit having been abated for the reason that LRs of defendant had not been brought on record. 6. I have gone through the impugned order. The trial Court had observed that on the death of Ganpat his son the alleged subletee had been plaintiff, which order had not been challenged and had attained finality. It was stated that Ram Gopal had been made party to the suit as subletee of the shop. Finding no merit in the application under Order 22 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code the same was dismissed. 7. It was stated that Ram Gopal had been made party to the suit as subletee of the shop. Finding no merit in the application under Order 22 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code the same was dismissed. 7. Counsel for petitioner relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and others, 1985(2) SCC 683 , in para 36 of judgment it was held that in the absence of any provision regulating the right of inheritance, and the manner and extent thereof and in the absence of any condition being stipulated with regard to the devolution of tenancy rights on the heirs on the death of the tenant, the devolution of tenancy right must necessarily be in accordance with the ordinary law of succession. 8. The case of Gaian Devi (supra) prescribed that tenancy becomes heritable if there is no contrary law available. This authority does not help the petitioner. The case of the plaintiff is for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and for subletting. 9. Counsel for petitioner also relies on the judgment in case of Nanne Khan v. Ram Dass, 1993(2) WLC (Raj.) 549, wherein a shop was taken on rent by K and N jointly and the rent note was signed by both. K died during pendency of second appeal filed jointly by K & N against the order of eviction. Legal representatives of K were not brought on record. It was held that the tenancy being joint and not tenancy in common, appeal abates as whole. High Court had declined to interfere in the second appeal. It was a case of joint tenancy and the court dismissed the appeal as abated on the death of a tenant. 10. Per Contra, counsel for respondent relies on a judgment in case of Navneet Rai. v. Otmal, 1994(2) RLW 32, wherein a commercial premises was leased out. High Court had declined to interfere in the second appeal. It was a case of joint tenancy and the court dismissed the appeal as abated on the death of a tenant. 10. Per Contra, counsel for respondent relies on a judgment in case of Navneet Rai. v. Otmal, 1994(2) RLW 32, wherein a commercial premises was leased out. The original tenant had died and relying on the judgment in case of Tara Chand v. Ram Prasad, 1990 111 SCC 526, it was observed that Section 3 sub-clause viii (b) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 contains the meaning of tenant and in the event of death of the person, his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir inherits in accordance with the personal law applicable to him who had been, in the case of premises leased out for residential purpose, ordinarily residing and in the case of premises leased out for commercial or business purpose, ordinarily carrying on business with him inherits in such premises as member of his family upto his death. It was held in the case of Navneet Rai that legal representatives of Navneet Rai were not carrying on the business with the deceased and were not tenant within the meaning of the Act and thus they have no right to challenge the decree of ejectment passed against the deceased Navneet Rai. 11. The facts of the present case are that even though the petitioner had been impleaded as subletee, but it was not the case of deceased tenant that Ram Gopal had not been assisting him in the business and it was only Ram Gopal who was concerned with the shop and not other family member, Ram Gopal had already been made party on the application under O.I.R. 10 Civil Procedure Code, which order of the court had not been challenged. The situation as exists in that the shop was leased out to Ganpat deceased and not to Ram Gopal, this situation has not been denied. It cannot be said that Ram Gopal having been brought on record can move the application under Order 22 Rule 5 and 9 Civil Procedure Code for dismissing suit having been abated. 12. After hearing counsel for petitioner and going through the impugned order, in my opinion the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application vide impugned order. It cannot be said that Ram Gopal having been brought on record can move the application under Order 22 Rule 5 and 9 Civil Procedure Code for dismissing suit having been abated. 12. After hearing counsel for petitioner and going through the impugned order, in my opinion the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application vide impugned order. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merits. 13. With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******