Eviction - Crucial date for determining the rights of the parties would be the date of filing the eviction petition.
Eviction - A statutory ground on which the eviction is sought would not be effected on the death of the original tenant during pendency of the proceedings.
Eviction - Sub-letting - Statutory tenancy is heritable, but the legal heirs would inherit the tenancy rights as well as the obligations - Any disability which is attached to the original tenant would also be passed on to the successor in interest.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This revision petition has been admitted to D.B. as there is a conflict of opinion expressed in different Single Bench judgments of this Court, on a question of law. The question of law can be stated as follows :-

"Does the ground of subletting, without the written consent of the landlord, survive for seeking eviction of the sub-tenant on the death of the original tenant, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings ?"

2. We may notice the relevant facts to illustrate how the question of law involved in this revision petition arises.

3. One Sudhir Kumar, the original landlord filed Rent Petition No. 95 of 11.9.1982 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act"), for ejectment of Khushi Ram and Murari Lal from the portion of property No. B.IV-448, Chhota Dal Bazar, Ludhiana consisting of six rooms, two bath rooms, open terrace with open space in front of room on first floor and a Barsati and now converted into a room of two portions and terrace in front of on the second floor alongwith right; to use staircase as shown red in the plan attached and bounded as under :-

North : Dal Bazar

South : Property of Chand Lal

East : Property of Gujjar Lal

West : Property of Gulzar Singh

4. During the pendency of the petition, Sudhir Kumar died. He was survived by his widow Reenu Bala, daughter Amar Lata wife of Jagdeep Chander and son Master Dhruv Kumar (minor). The demised premises had been given on rent to Khushi Ram son of Mula Ram, who had two brothers, Girdhari Lal and Murari Lal. Khushi Ram died on 15.12.1983, leaving behind Krishna Devi, his widow who also died on 29.7.1993. Girdhari Lal died on 26.8.1995 and was survived by his widow Raksha Rani and son Viney Kumar. Murari Lal also died on 18.7.1998. He is survived by Naresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. The Rent Controller decided the Eviction Petition on 31.5.1989. The Eviction Petition was accepted and an order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlords and order of the Rent Controller (sic) by filing MCA No. 11 of 31.7.1989 before the Appellate Authority. By judgment dated 9.12.1997, the Appellate Authority upheld the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the tenants. The tenants, namely, Murai Lal, Raksha Rani (widow of Girdhari Lal) have filed this Revision Petition challenging the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 31.5.1989 and the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 9.12.1997.

5. As noticed above, during the pendency of the petition, Sudhir Kumar, the original landlord died. His legal heirs Amar Lata, Reenu Bala, Master Dhruv Kumar (minor) were impleaded as the landlord-petitioners. The original tenant Khushi Ram also died on 15.12.1983 and his widow Krishna Devi was impleaded as respondent to the eviction petition. During the pendency of the appeal, Krishna Devi died on 29.7.1993. Khushi Ram and Krishna Devi died issueless. Girdhari Lal was brought on record as her legal representative. But Girdhari Lal also died on 26.8.1995 and his LRs Raksha Rani (his widow) and Viney Kumar (his son) were brought on record. At that stage, Murari Lal moved an application through his counsel for bringing on record subsequent events. It was pleaded that on the death of Khushi Ram and Krishna Devi, who died issueless, the inheritance of the tenancy rights will be governed by Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Since Khushi Ram was having only Class II heirs and since Murari Lal was the brother of the deceased, Khushi Ram, therefore, tenancy rights in the property had been inherited by him. He, therefore, became a tenant in the demised premises in his own right. On the basis of this, it was argued before the Appellate Authority that since Murari Lal had become a direct tenant in the demised premises, ground of subletting was no longer available to the landlord for seeking the order of eviction. At this stage, Girdhari Lal gave a further twis