Honble NAOLEKAR, J. —The decree for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of personal need was granted against Navneet Rai. During the pendency of the appeal, Navneet Rai died on 21.3.92 and his legal representatives Ku. Shashi Gupta (daughter), Suresh Prakash, Vijay Prakash and Anil Gupta were joined as a party in his place in the second appeal vide order dated 30.07.1992.

(2). The matter come up for hearing.

(3). It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that the legal representatives are not the tenants within the meaning of Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) and, therefore, this appeal be dismissed.

(4). On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that as the legal representatives have already been joined as a party in the second appeal, the question whether they are the tenant or not, can only be decided after enquiry to the effect whether they fall within the definition of tenant as given under the Act. The joining of the legal representatives of Shri Navneet Rai is for the purposes of continuing the appeal and simply because they have been joined as a party in the second appeal in place of Navneet Rai, it should not be deemed to have been proved that they are the tenants.

(5). Now it has to be seen whether they are tenants or not, requires an enquiry.

(6). It may be seen that an application was moved by the respondent landlord on 27.4.91, for stanting the subsequent events after the passing of the decree by the court below. In paragraph 3, it is stated that Navneet Rai, the tenant is an old man and has attained the age of 82 years and for last two years, he is physically unfit to carry on his business in the shop in question and the shop remains closed. Further it has been stated in the application that Navneet Rai has three sons viz., Dr. Suresh Gupta, Vijay Gupta and Shri Anil Kumar. All these three sons are employed. Dr. Suresh Gupta is in Government service, Vijay Gupta is employed in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan at Abu Raod and the third one is Bank Manager in Gramin Bank at Abu Road. Shri Navneet Rai had two daughters, one of them has already died and the surviving daughter Smt. Shashi is a Teacher in the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan.

(7). In answer to this application, appellant Navneet Rai has filed a reply and he said that he is a man of good health and he is doing job in the shop regularly and in good manner. He has no physical problem. The shop was never closed and is still regularly opened by Shri Navneet Rai. Shri Navneet Rai is not dependent on his sons and if he will be evicted from the shop, then he will suffer great hardship. There is no specific denial of the facts that his sons and the surviving daughters are employed else where. There is no assertion that any of the legal representatives have been carrying on business along with him. After the death of Navneet Rai, an application was moved by the respondents contending that in the first week of March, 1992, Navneet Rai has died leaving behind four legal representatives. It is further said that late Shri Navneet Rai was carrying on business in the shop in question. In view of his serious illness, shop was closed, in the later part of 1990 and now the question of continuance of his business by his legal representatives, who are all employees, does not arise but in order to get the appeal decided, it is necessary to bring the legal representatives of late Navneet Rai on record and, therefore, the legal representatives of deceased Navneet Rai be brought on record. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that legal representatives of deceased Navneet Rai were all employed. The legal representatives have also filed an application for impleading them as party and have said that the deceased had left the following legal representatives behind him to whom the right to sue survives and, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document