Tenancy rights under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act do not devolve to heirs unless specified, resulting in the eviction of non-applicants who claimed tenancy rights after the death of their mother.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

CMP No. 18170 of 2024.

The landlady-respondent has filed this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) seeking directions against the petitioners/non-applicants (hereinafter to be referred as non-applicants) to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises.

2. It is averred that the original tenant was one Shri Ghungar Ram, who left for his heavenly abode prior to the filing of the eviction petition which was filed against his wife Smt. Kamla Sharma. Now that Smt. Kamla Sharma has left for her heavenly abode, therefore, the non-applicants, who cannot be held to be the tenants, are required to be directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlady-respondent.

3. The legal heirs of Smt. Kamla Sharma have filed their reply to the application wherein it has been averred that both Sh. Ghungar Ram and his wife Smt. Kamla Sharma were living in the premises in question alongwith their children. Therefore, even after the demise of original tenant Shri Ghungar Ram, his tenancy rights came to be inherited by Smt. Kamla Sharma and her children as they were ordinarily residing with Shri Ghungar Ram and after his demise with Smt. Kamla Sharma. All the legal heirs of Shri Ghungar Ram succeeded to the tenancy rights as joint tenants after his demise simultaneously and, consequently, the death of Smt. Kamla Sharma would not put to an end the tenancy rights of the non-applicants.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

5. It is not in dispute that the eviction proceedings that have been filed by the landlord are against Smt. Kamla Sharma by claiming that she was a tenant without specifying as to whether such tenancy was by virtue of independent tenancy right or by way of succession under Section 2 (j) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “Act”). However, she was ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent Controller, which findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, giving rise to the instant petition.

6. However, during the pendency of this petition, the original landlord died and his legal representative-Smt. Madhu Sood filed CMP(M) No.772 of 2020 for bringing herself on record. This application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2021, which reads as under:-

“ CMP (M) No. 772 of 2020

The instant application has been filed by the legal representative of deceased sole respondent for bringing on record the legal representative, on the ground that the sole respondent has died on 06.07.2020 and prior to his death, the sole respondent has executed a will dated 11.06.2020. Without conducting the inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5, the legal representative of deceased sole respondent is ordered to be brought on record.Application stands disposed of.”

7. Incidentally, during the pendency of this petition, the said Smt. Kamla Sharma also died and her sons filed an application being CMP(M) No. 520 of 2021 seeking their impleadment as her legal representatives, as is evident from the prayer clause, which reads as under:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice application may be allowed and legal heirs of deceased sole petitioner i.e. applicants may be ordered to be brought on record in place of deceased sole petitioner as her legal representatives.”

8. This application also came up for consideration on 27.08.2021 and the Court passed the following order:-

“CMP(M) No. 520 of 2021 The instant application has been filed by one of the legal representatives of deceased sole petitioner for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, who is stated to have died on 29.04.2021. This application is within time and is allowed. However, allowing of this application is solely for the purpose of continuation of the proceedings and not in any manner would be acknowledgement of the right of tenancy of the LRs