Upon a tenant's death, the tenancy devolves as a joint and indivisible unit. Consequently, impleading the legal heir in possession effectively represents the estate for eviction proceedings, and the mechanical impleadment of every individual heir is not a mandatory requirement in law.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Triloki Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhya, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present petition calls in question the orders dated 26.11.2025, 18.07.2023, and 18.02.2021 passed in Small Causes Suit No. 18 of 2014. The principal relief sought is the setting aside of the substitution order dated 18.02.2021, whereby only the petitioner alone was impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased tenant, along with a consequential direction to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased defendant.

3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the plaintiff–respondent instituted Small Causes Suit No. 18 of 2014 seeking eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, and damages in respect of the disputed non-residential premises. The original defendant, Krishna Gopal Gupta, contested the suit by filing a written statement during his lifetime.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant expired on 14.02.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a substitution application dated 22.08.2019, pursuant to which the present petitioner, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, came to be impleaded as the sole legal representative of the deceased defendant by order dated 18.02.2021.

5. Subsequently, on account of non-appearance, the trial court proceeded ex parte against the defendants by order dated 27.04.2022. Upon acquiring knowledge of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed a recall application seeking recall of both the substitution order dated 18.02.2021 and the ex parte order dated 27.04.2022, inter alia, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased defendant had not been impleaded and that proper service had not been effected.

6. The trial court, by order dated 18.07.2023, partly allowed the recall application by setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 27.04.2022; however, it declined to recall the substitution order dated 18.02.2021. The revision preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the revisional court on 26.11.2025, affirming the view taken by the trial court.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has instituted the present petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the courts below have committed a manifest error of law in permitting the suit to proceed without impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, late Krishna Gopal Gupta. It is submitted that upon the death of the original tenant, the tenancy rights devolved upon all his legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and consequently, each of them acquired a joint and indivisible interest in the tenancy.

9. It is further contended that the non-impleadment of the widow, Smt. Neelam Agarwal, as well as the daughters of the deceased tenant, renders the proceedings fundamentally defective, inasmuch as they are necessary and proper parties whose rights stand directly affected by any decree of eviction. It is urged that failure to implead all such heirs results in denial of opportunity of he