The duty to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant lies with the heirs of the deceased and not with the landlord.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (Act - for short) against the order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn) Gurgaon whereby the objections of the objector-petitioner against the execution of the decree for possession in respect of the demised premises have been summarily dismissed.

2. The landlord - Prem Parkash (respondent No. 1) filed a petition for ejectment of his tenant-late Shri Shiv Lal under Section 13 of the Act. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, the tenant Shiv Lal died and his LRs-Shri Chand, Darshan Lal, Naresh (respondents No. 2 to 4) and Smt Jagni Devin (since deceased) were impleaded as his LRs on 3.1.2000. The ejectment petition filed by the landlord (respondent No. 1) was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. However, on appeal filed by the landlord, the same was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2003. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within a period of 60 days. They then filed a revision petition in this Court which was also dismissed and they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31.3.2005. The tenants then preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. However, they were granted four months time from 15.4.2005 to vacate the premises and till then the order of eviction was not to be executed. This was subject to the condition that the tenants file a prescribed undertaking. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Gurgaon, in her order, has observed that it had not come on the record that the tenants complied with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.4.2005 of the Hon ble Supreme Court or that they had filed an undertaking regarding compliance of the condition. The period of four months within which the order of eviction was not to be executed has since expired and the order of ejectment has become executable.

3. The petitioner-Manju Devi has filed objections against the execution of the decree alleging that on 17.7.2005 a property dealer had disclosed that possession of the house would be taken within 4-5 days by the DH-Prem Parkash (respondent No. 1) regarding which execution was pending The objector inspected the file and learnt about the decree for ejectment which, it is alleged, was passed behind her back. The LRs of de-ceased-Shiv Lal tenant did not disclose the name of the objector petitioner intentionally and knowingly and did not implead her as a party even though she was one of the LRs of Shiv Lal-tenant. The case set up by the objector-petitioner was/is that the entire proceedings were withheld from her in order to cause loss to her and she had a right to be heard being the LR of Shiv Lal. It is alleged that the petitioner is the widow of Chaman Lal @ Kamaljit who was the son of late Shiv Lal and after his death, she had inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises along with the other JDs. The husband of the objector-petitioner had died on 4.12.1989 and after his demise, her father-in-law Shiv Lal tenant and his three sons had been harassing her and her family members. Due to strained relations, the JDs did not disclose anything about the case and colluded with the DH.

4. Therefore, the DH was not entitled to take possession from the objector. The objections of the petitioner were contested by the DH-respondent. It was stated that the right to claim tenancy by inheritance was not a separate right and any one or all the LRs of the deceased could defend the case. Besides, by the presence of the sons and widow of the deceased, Shiv Lal, the estate and tenancy rights were duly represented. It is also stated that the LRs of the deceased-Shiv Lal had filed a revision against the order of the learned Appellate Authority in this Court which was dismissed. The