Point of Law: Tenancy and Land Lord - Eviction - By way of Will property stood bequeathed by the landlord in favour of his grand-sons, alongwith one of whom, he intended to start business in the demised premises after getting same vacated from tenant.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this Civil Revision, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that after calling for the record of the case from the Court of learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla (H.P.) the present petition may be accepted and impugned Order dated 13.12.2019 passed by Learned Rent Controller Court No. (2) Shimla (HP) in Rent Petition Case No. 18-2 of 2016/12 may be ordered to be set aside and consequently the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by landlords-respondents may be ordered to be dismissed with costs, by passing such further order as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein filed an Eviction Petition against the present petitioner, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The premises in issue are non-residential and in terms of the contents of the Eviction Petition, the demised premises are a shop, approximately measuring 450 square feet, in the ground floor of the building and a godown/store with approximately same area in the first floor of the building, No. 48, Lower Bazar, Shimla, H.P. The grounds mentioned in the petition for eviction of the tenant, inter-alia, are that the eviction of the tenant is sought, as the demised premises were bonafidely required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and for setting up business. It further stood mentioned in the Eviction Petition that the landlord, who was doing retail business of electrical parts and equipment in a rented shop at Middle Bazar, Shimla, H.P. bonafidely required the rented accommodation for his own use, with a view to start new business with his son and grand-son. During the pendency of this petition, the landlord died.

3. The respondents herein filed an application, under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, before learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for impleading them as legal representatives of the deceased landlord. It was mentioned in the application that petitioner/landlord (Chamba Mal Bhagra) had expired on 24.10.2018. The deceased (Shri Chamba Mal Bhagra), vide Will dated 03.10.2018 had bequeathed the rented accommodation in favour of the applicants, i.e. his grand-sons, to succeed his estate, which was in possession of the respondents. As per the applicants, as they had stepped into the footsteps of the deceased/landlord and had become owners of the property in question, they prayed for their impleadment as legal heirs of the deceased/ landlord.

4. The application was resisted by the tenants, inter-alia, on the ground that the applicants had failed to supply the copies of Will and mutation etc. and the application was otherwise not maintainable, as the Eviction Petition was filed by the landlord/petitioner, on the grounds of his personal use and occupation and after the death of Shri Chamba Mal Bhagra, the alleged requirement had ceased to exist.

5. This application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 13.12.2019. Learned Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the respective stand of the parties held that the factum of Shri Chamba Mal Bhagra having executed a Will, dated 03.10.2018, whereby he bequeathed and devised the demised premises in favour of his grand-sons, was not disputed by the tenant and the objection taken was that as deceased/landlord was having one son and one daughter, therefore, they were required to be impleaded as legal representatives. Learned Rent Controller held that the copy of Will and Mutation attested on the basis of the same were placed on record and perusal thereof demonstrated that as the grand-sons of original petitioner, namely Vikas Sood and Vishal Sood, were bequeathed the property, therefore, they could be termed to be