The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to provide evidence to support the claim of legal representation of the deceased landlady, as well as the need to address suspicions surrounding the matter of heirship.

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J.

1. This civil revision petition filed by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of the orders dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure P-5) and 31.7.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul whereby application of the petitioner for impleadment as legal heir of plaintiff Smt. Jamna Bai was ordered to be decided by the court after receiving evidence from the parties on the issues framed in this behalf. This order of 31.7.2012 was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner claiming himself to be legal heir of the plaintiff, which petition for review was also dismissed on 17.4.2013 imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. Hearing to counsel for the parties while going through the paper book has been provided.

3. A petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) filed by Smt. Jamna Bai widow of Remal Dass for eviction of tenant Shish Ram is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Narnaul. Landlady Smt. Jamna Bai is no more. Application for impleading him as legal representative of Smt. Jamna Bai was moved by the present petitioner claiming himself to be son of the landlady. Will dated 15.12.2003 from the landlady Smt. Jamna Bai has also been propounded in his favour by the petitioner averring testamentary succession.

4. This application was strongly opposed by the respondent-tenant claiming that neither the petitioner was son of Smt. Jamna Bai landlady (since deceased) nor has any legal right to file the application.

5. Hearing has been provided to the Counsel for the parties.

6. To adjudicate the matter of legal representation of landlady Smt. Jamna Bai (since deceased), the Rent Controller had framed certain issues which ipso facto do not provide any ground to challenge the said order. The learned Rent Controller (though it is wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Narnaul) has given cogent and convincing reasons for framing the issues for deciding the application, instead of straightway deciding the same on the basis of death certificate and the will of deceased Smt. Jamna Bai allegedly in favour of petitioner Desraj Taneja.

7. Premises in dispute were owned by Smt. Jamna Bai widow of Remal Dass. Name of mother of the petitioner is Smt. Mohan Devi. Claim of the petitioner is that Smt. Jamna Bai also had alias Smt. Mohan Devi. This aspect is also not free from doubts. If it is prima facie proved by the petitioner that he is the son of Smt. Jamna Bai, also known with alias Mohan Devi, he would be impleaded as legal representative. Similarly, if the petitioner, irrespective of existence or non-existence of blood relation with the landlady is able to convince the Court about testamentary succession of the landlady in his favour, even then he would be impleaded as legal representative.

8. At this stage, reference may be made to Rule 5 of Order XXII of CPC, 1908 which for ready reference is appended as below:-

"5. Determination of question as to legal representative – Where a question arises to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the court.

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question."

9. It is clear from this provision that where the question is as to whether a person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased, such a question is to be determined by the Court.

10. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has urged that since the