Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 108 (RAJ)

Shanti Chand & Anr v. Rent Tribunal

2014-01-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing impugned order dated 3.10.2013 (Annex.-7) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara whereby application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. by the respondent-applicant was allowed while following the principle of natural justice. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents No. 2 to 5 filed a petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against one Kanhaiya Lal Rampuriya who died on 30.7.1992. The aforesaid application was filed on 9.3.2010 against late Kanhaiya Lal Rampuriya only. On 28.8.2010, another application was filed under Order 22 Rule 3, read with Section 151, C.P.C. in which reply was filed by the petitioners. Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to substitute the names of the legal heirs of deceased Kanhaiya Lal Rampuriya in his place on 18.12.2012. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondents No. 2 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. vide the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal is illegal, so also, contrary to law in view of the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court, reported in 2003 AIHC 1975 (Bombay High Court), Smit. Jayalaxmi Janardhan Walawalkar & Others v. Lilachand Laxmichand Kapasi & Others , in which, it has been held that 90 days time to apply for bringing the legal representatives on record of deceased party to save the suit from abatement. If such an application is not made within time, an application has to be made for setting aside the abatement and if the party is able to show sufficient cause which prevented him from making the application in time, the Courts may pass appropriate order setting aside the abatement. But the specific provisions of Order 22 cannot be negated by indirectly making an application after lapse of time either under Section 151, C.P.C. or suo motu invocation of such power by the Court. 4. But the specific provisions of Order 22 cannot be negated by indirectly making an application after lapse of time either under Section 151, C.P.C. or suo motu invocation of such power by the Court. 4. Further it is pointed out that in the judgment reported in AIR 1924 Bombay 109, Rampratab Brijmohandas & Others v. Gavrishankar Kashiram , in which, it was held that when suit is brought against a person in the name in which he carries on business, the suit is essentially one against him and he is the sole defendant in the suit. If he dies before suit, and a suit is brought against him in the name in which he carried on business, the suit is against a dead man and it is a nullity from its inception. Therefore, in the case on hand also, suit was filed against a dead person and as such there was no occasion for the Rent Tribunal to accept the application filed by respondents No. 2 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. or Order 22 Rule 3, C.P.C. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, it emerges from the facts ; that application was filed under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in which, under Section 21, procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal are prescribed according to which the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and have power to regulate their own procedure and for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act they shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. In the opinion of this Court, at the inception when application was filed upon knowledge of the fact that Kanhaiya Lal Rampuriya died for impleading his legal heirs, then, obviously the said application was to be accepted and it has been done by the Rent Tribunal. 6. In the opinion of this Court, at the inception when application was filed upon knowledge of the fact that Kanhaiya Lal Rampuriya died for impleading his legal heirs, then, obviously the said application was to be accepted and it has been done by the Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners' Counsel has no foot to stand that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. should have been rejected by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that dead person was impleaded as defendant in the application. In the opinion of the Court as per the principle of natural justice the order passed by the Rent Tribunal is perfectly justified because the application has been filed initially just after filing application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001. It seems that to check multiplicity of litigation the Rent Tribunal exercised its power in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in which there is no wrong. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******