The court ruled that the daughter of a deceased tenant must be included in eviction proceedings to ensure fair adjudication of her inherited tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller-III, Shimla in Rent Case No.87/2019 (RBT: 254-2 of 2023/2019), whereby the application of the petitioner for amendment of reply under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “Code”) has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner and respondent shall hereafter be referred to as tenant and landlord respectively.

3. The landlord originally filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “Rent Act”) against one Sh. Satish Sood on the grounds of arrears of rent and personal bonafide requirement, which is pending on the files of learned Rent Controller-III, Shimla as Case No.87/2019 (RBT: 254-2 of 2023/2019).

4. Sh. Satish Sood died during the pendency of the petition on 08.09.2021. The landlord filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Sh. Satish Sood. It was averred that deceased Sh. Satish Sood was survived by his wife. The notice was issued to proposed legal representative of deceased Sh. Satish Chand, who on appearance filed reply to the application and raised an objection that besides her, one daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood was also required to be impleaded as party as she was ordinarily residing along with the deceased Sh. Satish Sood in the premises in question at the time of his death and as such had inherited the tenancy rights along with the wife of deceased Sh. Satish Chand.

5. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 24.05.2022 decided the application by allowing the wife of deceased Sh. Satish Chand to be brought on record. In this manner, the tenant came to be impleaded as respondent. As regards, the objection to implead the daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood as respondent being legal representative, learned Rent Controller held that since there was a dispute as to the factum whether the daughter of deceased Satish Sood was ordinarily residing in the premises at the time of his death or not, the same would be examined at the time of trial. It was also held that for the purpose of trial of rent petition, the petitioner was dominus litus and had a right to choose his adversary.

6. The aforesaid order passed by learned Rent Controller has attained finality as none of the parties challenged the same.

7. Later, the tenant filed an application for amendment of reply under provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The respondent sought to make two amendments in the replyby adding preliminary objection No.9 and, making additions to para 3 (b) of original reply in following manner:-

“(9) That petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood is also necessary party to the present petition as she was ordinarily residing with her at the time of her petition and she has inherited the tenancy rights along with the present respondent after the death of Sh. Satish Sood.”

“[3(b)] That the contents of para 3 (b) of petition are wrong and the same are denied. It is submitted that the daughter of deceased respondent is necessary party to the present petition as she has inherited the tenancy right along with respondent after the death of the Sh. Satish Sood in the demised premises.”

8. Thus, the respondent intended to take an objection as to non-joinder of necessary parties by alleging that the daughter of Sh. Satish Sood was ordinarily residing with him at the time of death and as such has inherited the tenancy rights.

9. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that the application is not bonafide and the respondent had intention to delay the proceedings of the case and hamper the smooth trial thereof. It was also claimed that since the same plea raised by the respondent while contesting application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code had already been turned down by learned Rent Controller,