JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 6069 of 2021:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed to bring to the notice of the Court about the death of respondent No.1, namely, Prema Singh.

2. It has been submitted that the respondent No.1, namely, Prema Singh has died on 18.06.2021 leaving behind the respondent nos.2 and 3 and two married daughters as her legal heirs and representatives, namely:

(a) Mr. Ambuj Kumar Gahlot

(b) Mr. Amitesh Gahlot both sons of Late (Captain) Amar Nath Singh

(c) Mrs. Namrata Singh wife of Shri Rahul Kumar Singh

(d) Mrs. Nidihi Singh, wife of Shri Rohit Singh

3. The instant application has been filed in pursuance of the provision provided under Order XXII Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking appropriate action.

4. A reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating inter alia therein that respondent No.1, Prema Singh, died in 18.06.2021 leaving behind the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and two married daughters as her legal heirs and representatives as claimed. In the instant application, it has been submitted by referring to the pleading made in the reply dated 10.08.2022 that in view of the definition of “tenant” as provided under Section 2(h) of the Act, 1982, married daughter will not come under the definition of “tenant”.

5. It has been submitted that as per Section 2(h) of the Act, 1982, “tenant” has been defined which means any person by whom, or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes spouse; son or unmarried daughter or where there are both, both of them; parents and; daughter-in-law, being the widow of a predeceased son.

6. It has further been submitted that Mr. Ambuj Kumar Gahlot and Mr. Amitesh Gahlot are respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the petition. So far as Mrs. Namrata Singh and Nidihi Singh are concerned, it has been stated at paragraph-8 that they are married daughters of the respondent no.1, as such, neither of them come under the definition of “tenant”, as such, no substitution of parties is required in the instant writ petition.

7. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue as to whether the substitution of married daughter are at all required warranting the petitioners to take steps for their substitution in the writ petition or not?

8. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue, has considered the definition of “tenant” as provided under Section 2(h) of the Act, 1982, which reads as under:

“”Tenant” means any person by whom, or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes-

(i) a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour; and

(ii) a person who occupies a building as an employees of the landlord of such building either on payment of rent or otherwise;

(iii) in the event of death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy subject to the order of succession and condition specified, respectively, in Explanations I and II to this clause, such of the aforesaid person’s-

(a) spouse

(b) Son or unmarried daughter or where there are both, both of them

(c) Parents Daughter-in-law, being the widow of a predeceased son, as had been ordinarily residing in the premises with such person as a member of members of his family up to the date of his death, but does not include any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made.

9. It is, thus, evident that the “tenant” means any person by whom, or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes-(i) a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour; and (ii) a person who occupies a building as an employees of the landlord of such building either on payment of rent or otherwise; (iii) in the event of death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy subject to the order of succession and condition specified, respectively, in Explanations I and II to this clause, such of the aforesaid