Impleadment of one of the joint tenants is sufficient to maintain an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petition arises out of an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of premises no. 1548, Kucha Seth, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The petition was filed by the Landlord-Sanket Behari Mittal against Shri. Kishan Chand-the Tenant, and his son, Sh. Dhiraj Kumar. During the pendency of the petition, the Landlord was informed that Shri Kishan Chand had passed away, and accordingly on 5th July, 2017, a statement was made in the Court to the effect that Shri Kishan Chand's name may be deleted. The said statement is recorded by the ld. ARC and the same reads as under:

"I am counsel for the petitioner in the present case. I do not want to implead the other alleged legal heirs of late Sh. Kishan Chand, as disclosed by respondent no. 2 through his application except respondent no. 2, who is already impleaded as party in the present petition since all the legal heirs of late Sh. Kishan Chand have impliedly surrendered their tenancy rights in the premises in question. Further, I want to delete the name of Sh. Kishan Chand from the array of parties in view of the judgment titled as "Krishan Kumar Alag. Vs. Jambu Prasad Jam (deceased), through LR Anand Kumar Jain" reported as 161 (2009) DLT 511."

2. The petition was filed sometime in April, 2017 and at the inception itself, in July, 2017, Shri Kishan Chand was deleted. Leave to defend was granted. The matter has subsequently proceeded for framing of issues and the evidence on behalf of the parties has been recorded and concluded.

3. On 24th September, 2018, the four sisters of the only surviving Respondent i.e. Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, who are the daughters of late Shri Kishan Chand moved an application seeking impleadment in the eviction petition on the ground that they have inherited the tenancy from their father. The second ground seeking impleadment was that they came to know of the pendency of the eviction petition on the day of rakshabandhan, and they have also contributed to the rent for the property. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 4th February, 2019 on the ground that the son of Shri Kishan Chand was on record as Respondent no 2, and in case of the tenancy being a joint tenancy, since one of the legal representatives is on record, no further impleadment was required.

4. Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj, ld. counsel appearing for the sisters, who are the Petitioners herein, submits that Sh. Kishan Chand had passed away prior to the filing of the petition and since the petition was filed against a dead person, the same was not maintainable. It is further submitted that at the inception itself the landlord ought to have impleaded all the LRs of Shri Kishan Chand, and thus the impleadment has been erroneously dismissed by the Trial Court. The ld. ARC rejected the application for impleadment on 9th October, 2018. The Petitioners then filed an appeal before the ld. RCT. By the impugned order dated 4th February, 2019, the RCT has dismissed the appeal. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Alag v. Jambu Prasad Jain Decd the LR Anand, 161 (2009) DLT 511, to submit that if the tenant has died, no petition would have been maintainable against the dead tenant.

5. On the other hand, ld. counsel appearing for the Landlord submits that the law is quite settled since the 1960s-that the LRs of late Shri Kishan Chand would only be joint tenants and impleadment of one of the LRs is sufficient for the petition to be held to be mentionable. He relies upon the following judgments:

(i) Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468

(ii) Mohd. Usman v. Mst. Surayya Begum, 1990 (3) DELHI LAWYER 163

(iii) H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, AIR 1989 SC 1470

6. Ld. counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2-the brother of the Petitioners, who is the original Respondent in the eviction petition, Shri Dhiraj Kumar submits that he has already con