Legal heirs can be impleaded in ongoing proceedings if the original plaintiff's right to sue survives their death, regardless of their status as lessee or licensee.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM No. 31377/2022 (exemption) and CM No. 31378/2022 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stands disposed of.

CM (M) 685/2022

3. This petition throws up a very limited controversy.

4. Respondent 1 Kanhaiya Lal filed Suit 956/2018 (Kanhaiya Lal v. MCD & others) against, inter alia, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the petitioner Bhagwan Singh. In the suit, Kanhaiya Lal claimed to be a lessee of the suit premises.

5. The case set up by the plaintiff in the suit was this: The plaintiff is a washerman. A particular area in Timarpur, New Delhi, was demarcated, prior to India attaining independence, for washermen to wash clothes. It was identified as a "Dhobi Ghat". Yearly leases of the Dhobi Ghat were granted by the municipal authorities. Shyam Lal, the father of Kanhaiya Lal, was a lessee, to whom such a lease was granted. He also used to pay yearly lease money to the civic authorities without default. The plaintiff asserts that Kanhaiya Lal continues to be a lessee in respect of the Dhobi Ghat. Consequent to the demise of Shyam Lal, Kanhaiya Lal applied, to Respondent 2 (hereinafter, "MCD"), on 30th July 1965, seeking issuance of lease, as earlier issued to Shyam Lal, in his name and for mutation of the revenue records, incorporating his name in place of Shyam Lal as the lessee of the Dhobi Ghat. This request was reiterated on 9th March, 2001. The plaintiff further asserts that Kanhaiya Lal had deposited the lease money for the period 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2009. In such circumstances, Kanhaiya Lal, by the suit, sought a declaration that he was the lessee in respect of the Dhobi Ghat, as well as an injunction against the petitioner Bhagwan Singh who, he alleged, was illegally seeking to dispossess him from the Dhobi Ghat.

6. Bhagwan Singh and the MCD contested the claim and asserted, per contra, that Kanhaiya Lal was not a lessee but was merely a licensee.

7. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by Kanhaiya Lal in the suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by order dated 21st July, 2020, opining that Kanhaiya Lal was not a lessee but was merely a licensee. The appeal, wherein the impugned order has come to be passed was instituted, thereagainst, by Kanhaiya Lal, before the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ").

8. During the pendency of the appeal, Kanhaiya Lal expired. The legal heirs of Kanhaiya Lal moved an application under Order XXII Rule 3¹ of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded in his place. The application was opposed by Bhagwan Singh, contending that, as Kanhaiya Lal was not a lessee but was merely a licensee, his legal heirs had no right to be impleaded in the proceedings.

9. The learned ADJ has, in the impugned order dated 18th April 2022, held that, as Kanhaiya Lal claimed, in the plaint filed by him, to be a lessee, his legal heirs had a right to be impleaded in the suit, consequent on his demise.

10. It is this order which forms subject matter of challenge of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the fact that there is no statutory proscription against the learned ADJ impleading the legal representatives of Kanhaiya Lal even while the issue whether Kanhaiya Lal was a lessee or licensee, remains at large. He, however, draws my attention to Order XLI Rule 25² of the CPC, and submits that the learned ADJ should have framed an issue as to whether the legal heirs, who sought to be imple