Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1431 (HP)

Rikhi Ram Amar Nath v. Vikas Sood

2019-09-23

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant petition filed under S.24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, (hereinafter, 'Act') lays challenge to order dated 15.7.2019 passed by learned Rent Controller(2), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application having been filed by respondents under Order XXII, rule 3 read with S.151 CPC, for impleadment as petitioners/landlords in place of original tenant, Chamba Mal Bhagra, who died on 24.10.2018, came to be dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Rent Controller while allowing application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with S.151 CPC, filed by the respondents herein for their impleadment as petitioners/landlords, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, same does not call for any interference. 3. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner/landlord, Chamba Mal Bhagra had filed a petition for eviction on two grounds viz. (a) building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, (b) bona fide requirement for building/rebuilding. It is also not in dispute that the original landlord, Chamba Mal Bhagra expired on 24.10.2018, whereafter, an application under Order XXII, rule 3 CPC came to be filed on behalf of his grandsons Vishal Sood and Vikas Sood, on the basis of Will. Though, initially aforesaid application came to be resisted on behalf of tenants on the ground that neither copy of Will nor mutation, if any, entered in the names of the applicants, after death of original landlord, Chamba Mal Bhagra, has been placed on record but, it clearly emerges from the impugned order that during pendency of the application referred to herein above, both the documents i.e. Will as well as mutation, were supplied to the tenants. Applicants also placed on record death certificate disclosing therein the factum with regard to death of original landlord, Chamba Mal Bhagra. As per Will placed on record, ground floor of the building,48/1, Lower Bazaar, Shimla, stands bequeathed in favour of respondents herein i.e. Vishal Sood and Vikas Sood both sons of Shri Ravinder Kumar Sood. 4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, representing the tenants, vehemently argued that plea of building being bonafide required by the landlord is no more available to the landlord, as he has died. Mr. 4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, representing the tenants, vehemently argued that plea of building being bonafide required by the landlord is no more available to the landlord, as he has died. Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate further argued that in view of death of the original landlord, application filed by the applicants/respondents is not maintainable. However, having notice the fact that by way of Will, property in question stands bequeathed in favour of the applicants/respondents herein, this Court finds no force in the aforesaid argument of Mr. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the tenants because claim, if any, with regard to existence of ground i.e. building being bona fide required for personal use, is to be decided in the main petition and not in the application for impleadment. Moreover, issue with regard to availability of ground if bona fide requirement for personal requirement, after death of original landlord, is no more res integra in view of the judgment laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, AIR 2004 SC 3484 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that even if landlord dies during pendency of the petition, bona fide need cannot be said to have lapsed. 5. Apart from above, in the case at hand, another plea i.e. building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, has been also taken by the tenants, landlords, as such, learned Rent Controller below has rightly concluded that cause of action qua aforesaid ground can be inherited by the successors of the original landlord. 6. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Order passed by learned Rent Controller below is upheld. Needless to say, question with regard to availability of ground raised in the petition, shall be decided in accordance with law, in the main petition by learned Rent Controller. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim direction, if any stands vacated.