IMPORTANT POINT
Since pleader of respondent has not discharged his duty to inform Court for other parties of death of respondent and continued to plead matter, appeal not abated.

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2009 passed by Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.6S/14 of 2008.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner/landlady (hereinafter referred to ‘landlady’ for convenience sake) filed a petition against the original tenant/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’ for convenience sake) on the following grounds:

(i) The respondent is in arrears of rent from 1.12.2001 till the date of filing of the petition. The respondent is also liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum.

(ii) That after the commencement of the act the respondent, without consent, written or otherwise, of the petitioner has sub-let or in any other manner transferred his rights under the lease in favour of one Shri Banti who is son of the respondent. It is worthwhile to submit here that the respondent has left the business premises and the said sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the premises. It is further submitted that the premises which were let out to the tenant for running a Tailor Shop are being used by the sub-tenant for a purpose other than for which these were let namely for running a grocery shop.

(iii) That although the respondent has either sub-let or in any other manner transferred his rights under the lease to the sub-tenant, yet, in alternative it is submitted that in case this Hon’ble Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the premises have not been sub-let by the respondent or that he has not in any manner transferred his rights under the lease, in that event the tenant has used the premises without written consent of the landlord, for a purpose for which these were let out to him.”

3. Learned Rent Controller issued notice pursuant to which tenant Devi Ram appeared. He filed detailed reply to the petition. He has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition in the present form, estoppel and that the petition has not been instituted according to the mandatory provisions of law and the same was not verified properly. On merits, the relationship of landlady and tenant stood admitted. However, it was denied that the rent was Rs.1,000 per month. According to the respondent, the rent payable was Rs.400 per month. The same was recently increased to Rs.500 per month. The petitioner has raised the demand to increase the rent to Rs. 1,000 per month. When the tenant refused to increase the rent, present petition was filed. According to him, the rent upto 31.5.2002 had already been paid and he was not in arrears of rent. He was ready and willing to pay rent with effect from 1.6.2002. The issues were framed on 20.9.2002. Thereafter, the matter was listed for evidence of the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent Devi Ram expired on 12.7.2003. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent on 11.12.2003. Petitioner moved an application under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14.11.2003 to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. The application was opposed by the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent. According to them, the application was not maintainable since the same has been instituted beyond the period of limitation. The exact date of death of Devi Ram was not disclosed. The respondent has left behind the wife and two sons. All the three were legal heirs of the deceased respondent. According to them, second son has not been shown as his legal heir. Rent Controller framed the issues on 22.9.2005. He dismissed the application on 23.7.2007. According to him, the application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to corroborate her claim. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. He also dismissed the same