JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10th of January, 2008 of the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jaipur being S.B. Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the application filed by the appellants for being substituted as legal representatives of one Santok Singh who had died subsequently during the long drawn legal battle between the parties, and dismissedthe Second appeal filed by the appellants as having been abated.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated briefly as under : -

The dispute relates to a shop situated at Madanganj, District Kishangarh, Rajasthan. The appellants belonged to a joint family consisting of Santok Singh, father of the appellants (now deceased), and the appellants namely, Man Mohan Singh and Jaswant Singh. Their third brother namely, Balbeer Singh had already separated during the lifetime of the father of the appellants and he runs his own business.

4. The appellants along with their father were carrying on business of motor spare parts as well as a Kerosene Retail outlet business. On 24th of February, 1997, the respondent filed a suit for eviction against the father of the appellants Late Santok Singh (since deceased) and the firm owned by him namely M/s Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh on the ground of bonafide requirement. By an order dated 30th of July, 1997, the Additional Civil Judge, Kishangarh, held that the respondent had failed to prove his bonafide requirement and, therefore, dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the respondent filed a first appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer. On 5th of October, 2002, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for eviction against the father of the appellants, Santok Singh (since deceased) and his firm. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, late Santok Singh and the firm through late Santok Singh filed a Second Appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 486 of 2002.

5. On 18th of September, 2006, the father of the appellants late Santok Singh died leaving behind his widow and three sons, out of whom the appellants being two of them, were living with late Santok Singh at the time of his death. The third son had already separated from the joint family and started a business of his own. On 26th of October, 2006, the appellants filed an application for being substituted under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as legal representatives of late Santok Singh, having specifically mentioned in the said application that they were ordinarily carrying on business along with their father as the members of his family till the time of his death.

6. On 16th of April, 2007, the respondent filed a reply opposing the application filed by the appellants for substitution as legal representatives of late Santok Singh and prayed that the appeal be dismissed as abated.

7. The High Court by the impugned order rejected the application and dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated.

8. It is against this order of the High Court that the appellants have filed this Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave was heard by us in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. The relevant issue which is to be determined in this appeal is whether the two sons of late Santok Singh can be substituted as his legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC pursuant to the provisions of section 3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” in short).

10. Before delving further into the issue, it is necessary to reproduce the above mentioned section, namely section 3 (vii) of the Act which runs as under:

3 (vii): “tenant” means-

a. the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or, but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person wh