JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - One Manjit Singh, was, the occupant, of, a shop, located near Old Barriers, Boileauganj, Shimla. His afore occupation, was, as a licensee, therein, as became granted, to him, by the Himachal Pradesh Muncipal Commission. Since some amount, of, the apposite license fees, remained, un-liquidated by him, to, the licensor, hence, proceedings, for recovery, of, the afore license, fee, is also, hence, for eviction, of, the afore Manjit Singh, became drawn, during his life time, against the latter, by the Collector concerned, under H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. However, a perusal , of, the orders, pronounced by the Collector concerned, on 2.8.2008, unfolds, vis--vis, the Inspector concerned, submitting the list of legal heirs, of, the afore Manjit Singh, and, summons, also became issued, to, the major legal heirs, of, the afore Manjit Singh. Obviously, hence, it appears that the demise, of, one Manjit Singh, had, occurred, during the pendency,of, the proceedings, drawn, during his life-time, under, the relevant provisions, of, the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. On 23.8.2011, the widow, of, deceased Manjit Singh, recorded her appearance, hence, as his legal heir, before the learned Collector concerned, and, disclosed therebefore, that, owing to, the, demise, of, her husband, and, besides, given adverse financial circumstances, hence, besetting her, thereupon, demanded qua the arrears of rent, be considered to being waived off. 2. However, even though, under, an Order recorded on, 2.8.2011, by the Collector concerned, a direction, became issued, for valid service, being caused, upon, all the legal heirs, of, the deceased Manjit Singh, inclusive, of, his widow, one Paramjit Kaur, yet thereafter, there is no further echoing(s), in the orders, whether the afore order, became complied with, nor also, there is any order, vis--vis, theirs'' joining the proceedings, drawn against deceased Manjit Singh, excepting, the, participation in the lis, of, one Paramjit Singh, his widow. Even if, the serving agency, omitted to mete compliance, vis--vis, the orders, recorded on 2.8.2011, and also hence, when all the surviving legal heirs, of, Manjit Singh, did not, cause their participation, in the afore drawn proceedings, by the Collector concerned, against deceased Manjit Singh, rather when the deceaseds'' surviving widow, one Paramjit Kaur, alone recorded her participation, in the afore proceedings, (i) and when hence, her participation, in the afore proceedings, may constrain this Court, to, form an inference, vis--vis, hers'' alone becoming, construable to be the legal heir, of, the deceased Manjit Singh, (ii) and, also, hers'' alone becoming entitled, to, continue the lis, on his behalf, rather on the afores'' demise. However, a perusal, of, the orders, made by the learned Collector concerned, in the proceedings drawn against him, by the learned Collector concerned, does not, reflect qua the afore Paramjit Kaur, hence making any communication, during the pendency, of, the proceedings, drawn by the learned Collector, vis--vis, hers comprising the only surviving legal heir, of, deceased Manjit Singh, nor also, vis--vis, excepting her, the, other purported legal heirs, not becoming entitled, to, join the proceedings. Consequently, the effects thereof, is, that it was imperative, for the Collector concerned, to, ensure that apart from, the widow, of, the deceased, all the other legal heirs, of, the deceased Manjit Singh, also becoming ensured to, participate, in, the relevant proceedings. Since, the afore requisite remained made, hence, by the Collector concerned, from, 2.8.2011, and upto the impugned order, becoming drawn, a) whereupon, the afore omissions, constrain this Court, to make a conclusion, vis--vis, all the proceedings, drawn, against the afore deceased, rather becoming ipso facto abated, (b) given despite, the apposite period, of, 90 days, computable from 2.8.2011, whereat, uncontrovertedly, the demise, of Manjeet Singh occurred, hence upto the impugned rendition, becoming drawn, hence elapsing, for, the relevant valid substitution becoming ordered, rather with, the, afore time, whereas, the apposite valid orders remaining un-rendered, (c) whereupon the afore omissions, constrain this Court, to, make a conclusion, vis--vis, all the proceedings, drawn, against the afore deceased, rather becoming, on his demise, hence ipso facto abated, d) unless, the counsel, representing the Municipal Commissioner, Shimla, before the Collector concerned, moved an application, for setting aside, the, afore ipso facto occurring abatement. However, the afore requisite application, does not, exist on the records, of, the case. However, the afore requisite application, does not, exist on the records, of, the case. Consequently, the further progressing(s), of, proceedings, by the learned Collector, concerned, became, ingrained with the vice, of, vitiations, given theirs becoming drawn, despite the lis, for the afore reasons, ipso-facto, becoming abated. 3. In view of this, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, is, quashed and set aside. However, since it is stated at the bar, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the demised premises, vis--vis, the afore deceased Manjit Singh, are, now in the possession, of, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, thereupon the petition is completely closed, as far, as the afore controversy, is, concerned. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.