J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

CM APPL. NO. 33916/2022

1. The present application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed by the Legal Representatives (‘LRs’) of the original Respondent, landlady (‘original Respondent’), seeking dismissal of the present revision petition filed by the Petitioner, tenant, on the ground that the petition has abated on account of the Petitioner’s failure to implead the LRs of the original Respondent.

2. Learned counsel the applicants states that the eviction order dated 26.07.2018 (‘impugned eviction order’) with respect to commercial premises bearing No. B-1458, Shastri Nagar, Delhi – 110052 (‘tenanted premises’)

was passed in favor of the original Respondent.

3. He states that original Respondent expired during the pendency of the present revision proceedings, i.e., on 25.02.2021. He states that the original Respondent executed a registered Will dated 01.11.2019 in favor of the applicants, who are the sons of the original Respondent. He states that in terms of the Will, the applicants herein have become the exclusive owners of the tenanted premises and the impugned eviction order which pertains to the estate of the original Respondent also enure in their favor.

4. He states that the Petitioner is well acquainted with the family members of the original Respondent and the applicants herein. He states that even after learning about the death of the original Respondent, the Petitioner has failed to take steps to bring on record the LRs of the original Respondent, in accordance with law.

5. He states that the limitation for bringing the LRs on record has expired and therefore, the present revision petition has abated. He therefore prays that the present petition be dismissed.

6. He relies upon the judgment in Leelawatibai (deceased) through LRs. Mahendra Kumar & Ors. v. Radhakishan (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt.

Sajjanbai& Ors., AIR 2011 Madhya Pradesh 126 (Indore Bench).

7. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant relies on the reply dated 10.11.2022 filed to the present application. He states that in the facts of this case the LRs of the original Respondent are not entitled to be brought on record.

8. He states that the eviction petition before the Trial Court was filed by the original Respondent in her capacity as a widow, under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘the DRC Act’) for her personal need. He states that on account of her death during the pendency of this revision petition, the need or requirement as pleaded in the eviction petition does not survive after the death of the original Respondent.

9. He states that in fact the eviction order is liable to be set aside by this Court on account of the subsequent event of her death. He states that in view of the said facts, the Petitioner is not required in law to bring the LRs of the original Respondent on record as no rights under the eviction order can be said to have devolved on them. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and Another v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The legal issue which arises for determination in the facts of this case is as under:

“Whether an eviction order passed on account of the need or requirement of the landlord/landlady, which has been stayed during the pendency of the revision petition filed by the tenant, can be set aside by the Court without bringing on record the legal heirs of the landlord/landlady?”

11. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that in the reply dated 10.11.2022 filed by the Petitioner, he has categorically admitted about his knowledge of the death of the original Respondent on 25.01.2021.

12. The impugned eviction order was passed in favor of the original Respondent, directing the eviction of the Petitioner, tenant, from the tenanted premises. It is pertinent to mention that impugned eviction