A decree against a deceased tenant remains valid despite procedural objections; heirs inherit tenancy rights jointly without the need for individual notices post-substitution.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013, passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.60 of 2012: Salil Kumar Rastogi Vs. Ram Bharose Verma (dead) through LRs. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. raising objection against the application for execution of the ex-parte decree and the Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow rejected this application by means of an order dated 22.03.2015. The rejection order was challenged by filing SCC Revision No.24 of 2015, which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 and the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 23.05.2015 and the revisional order dated 27.05.2025 also.

3. The petitioners have impleaded the learned Additional District Judge-XII, Lucknow and Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow as opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the petition.

4. The Registry had put an objection against impleadment of the courts as the opposite parties to the petition and although the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the courts have been impleaded erroneously no prayer has been made for striking out the courts as the opposite parties to the petition, whereas, as far back as in the year 1995 in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur; (1999) 2 SCC 577 the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of courts being impleaded as opposite parties to the petition filed in the High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. In the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat , (2015) 9 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that: -

“43. ...The civil courts, which decide matters, are courts in the strictest sense of the term. Neither the court nor the Presiding Officer defends the order before the superior court it does not contest. If the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction, as the case may be, calls for the records, the same can always be called for by the High Court without the Court or the Presiding Officer being impleaded as a party. ... the authorities or the tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as parties, the writ petition can be treated to be not maintainable or the court may grant liberty to implead them as parties in exercise of its discretion. There are tribunals which are not at all required to defend their own order, and in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties...”

Therefore, the Additional District Judge ought not to have been impleaded.

6. The proceeding arise out of S.C.C. Suit No. 60 of 2012 filed by the landlord Salil Kumar Rastogi (the opposie party no. 3) for ejectment of the tenant Sri. Ram Bharose Verma (since deceased, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners) from the premises bearing House No.109/136-Ka, new No.109/187, situated in Model House, Lucknow. The landlord had pleaded in the suit that he had purchased the house from its previous owners Nishi Tandon and Ramesh Tandon. He had sent a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the tenant, which was served on 28.03.2012, but in spite of it the tenant did not pay rent to him and