Point of Law: Under Rule 10, Order 22 of Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during pendency of a suit, suit may, by leave of Court, be continued by or against persons upon whom such interest has devolved.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act,1987 (hereinafter, ‘Act) lays challenge to order dated 10.09.2020 passed by Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, having been filed by respondent, came to be allowed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that late Smt. Sudarshna Devi claiming herself to be landlord of shop No.52, The Mall Shimla, filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act, seeking ejectment of the petitioners herein(hereinafter, ‘tenants) and proforma-respondents No.2 to 4 from the premises known as shop No. 52, The Mall Shimla on the ground that premises were bona-fidely required by her for providing accommodation to her son Rakesh Kumar Goel, who intends to start practice as consulting engineer in the shop in occupation of the tenants. Before aforesaid petition could be decided on its own merit, Smt. Sudarshna Devi expired on 24.03.2019 and as such, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goel, son of late Smt. Sudarshna Devi, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, praying therein for his substitution in place of original landlord Smt. Sudarshna Devi. Applicant Rakesh Kumar Goel averred in the application that late Smt. Sudarshna Devi before her death, executed a Will dated 24.12.2011, thereby bequeathing demised premises in his favour. Applicant further pleaded that he being legal representative of deceased Smt. Sudarshna Devi is entitled to prosecute the case. Applicant further averred that her deceased mother had filed petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for settling her son i.e. applicant, but now after her death, bonafide need of the applicant is in his own right.

3. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the applicant, as named hereinabove, came to be resisted on behalf of petitioners and proforma-respondents No.2 to 4 on the ground that Smt. Sudarshna Devi had not executed any Will in favour of the applicant and Will propounded by him is false and fabricated. They also averred in the reply that Will has been created merely with an oblique motive to oust the petitioners from the demised premises. Petitioners further averred in the reply that petition has already been abated on account of death of original landlord Smt. Sudarshna Devi. It also came to be denied on behalf of the petitioners and proforma-respondents No.2 to 4 that need of the deceased was bonafide and they averred that applicant has no right to be arrayed as legal representatives of the original landlord because requirement of applicant has ceased to exist with the death of original landlord and the petition has become infructuous. Apart from above, petitioners and proforma-respondents No.2 to 4 also averred in the reply to the application that under proviso to Section 14(6) of the Act, no petition can be filed within five years from the date of acquisition of interest in the premises by the landlord.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis aforesaid pleadings adduced on record allowed the application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased Smt. Sudarshna Devi and vide order impugned in the instant proceedings ordered for substitution of applicant Rakesh Kumar Goel in place of late Smt. Sudarshna Devi. In the aforesaid background, petitioners and proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings passed by Rent Controller while allowing application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same does not call for any interference.

6.