Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Sheela Wati @ Sheela Kiran @ Sheela (since Deceased) - Appellant
Versus
Ravi Tandon - Respondent
CR-360 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the Respondent
The validity of a Will and the legal representation of successors-in-interest under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Ex Parte Order - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13 - 11, 13
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside an ex parte eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the deceased tenant. The petitioners claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased tenant based on a Will executed in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller partly allowed the application for impleadment of petitioners as legal representatives, only for the limited purpose to contest the proceedings, without giving any finding as to whether the Will was validly executed or the present petitioners are legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati, as claimed by them.
Issues: Validity of the Will, legal representation of the petitioners, and service of summons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioners' claim as legal representatives based on the Will was not substantiated, and the service of summons was validly effected on the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte eviction order.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral). - Grievance of the petitioners herein is qua dismissal of their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 05.09.2013 and resultant ex parte eviction order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala.
2. The petitioners claim themselves to be successor-in-interest of deceased Ms. Sheela Wati @ Sheela Kiran @ Sheela, against whom rent petition was filed seeking her eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
3. The respondent-landlord represented before the Rent Controller that service of Court summons was duly effected on Late Ms. Sheelawati by way of a munadi and also by affixation as well. Based on service report submitted by Process Server, the Rent Controller passed an order dated05.09.2013 to proceed ex parte against the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati. Later, ex parte eviction order dated 02.07.2014 was also passed against the tenant.
4. Resultantly, during her lifetime, the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati vide application dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) sought to set aside the ex parte eviction order dated 02.07.2014 as well recalling of order dated 05.09.2013 vide which she was proceeded ex parte. However, before the said application could be decided, the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati expired on 15.05.2017 and present petitioners, on the basis of a Will dated 16.04.2017 executed in their favour, vide application dated 15.11.2017 sought their impleadment as legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati.
5. The said application was hotly contested by the landlord, both on the ground of locus as well as on the ground of veracity of the Will, which as per landlord, was not a legally admissible document. Ultimately, vide an order dated 08.02.2018 the Rent Controller partly allowed the application for impleadment of petitioners as legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati, only for the limited purpose to contest the proceedings, without giving any finding as to whether the Will was validly executed or the present petitioners are legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati, as claimed by them.
6. After passing of the said order, detailed issues were framed and respective evidence was led by both the parties qua recalling of ex parte order dated 05.09.2013 and eviction order dated 02.07.2014. One of the grounds taken to oppose the right of the petitioners to contest the rent proceeding was once again the same i.e. whether will was validly executed in their favour and whether they can act as the legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati, as claimed by them.
7. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once permission was granted vide order dated 08.02.2018, to contest the proceedings as legal representatives, the petitioners could not have been non-suited on the ground of locus-standi, is being noted only to be rejected. The permission granted by the Rent Controller to petitioners to contest vide order dated 08.02.2018 stood subsumed in the final order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Rent Controller. The Court below was well within four corners of law to sift through the evidence and gave findings qua locus of the petitioner. The relevant para No. 11 of the impugned order reads thus:-
"11. Further the applicants are appearing on the basis of a Will which is an unexecuted, unregistered document regarding which neither any case has been filed by the applicant either in the Civil Court or in the revenue Court for getting a declaration to the effect that now he along with Gagandeep Singh Advocate are the owners on the basis of Will. Said fact is admitted by AW.1 in his cross-examination that till date they have not got entered any mutation regarding unregistered Will dated 16.4.2017 nor has moved any application to M. C. Patiala regarding change of ownership in their name on the basis of Will. Further they have admitted that there is no entry in the revenue record qua the Will in his favour, as such the applica
