Suit does not abate upon death of one plaintiff if the right to sue survives; legal representatives need not be substituted if the cause of action continues.

Romesh Verma, Judge

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 01.04.2025, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant/defendant has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2022, as passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. have been affirmed whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed.

2 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant/defendant on 18.10.2011 before the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur. It was averred that Krishan Lal and Ramanand were owners in possession of the residential house and two shops, situated in Khasra No.165 of Abadi Deh Majra. Ramanand was married with Smt. Shakuntla Devi and from this wedlock, plaintiffs were born, who are their only legal heirs. Subsequently, on 28.11.1985, Krishan Lal died issoueless. Ramanand being his real brother inherited share of Krishan Lal and became absolute owner of the suit property. Ramanand sold one shop to Prem Chand hin the year 1989 and now, Prem Chand is owner in possession of the said shop. Ramanand died on 29.9.1991, leaving behind plaintiffs as his daughters and Shankuntla Devi as his wife, being the only legal heirs.

3 As per the plaintiffs, they along with Shankuntla Devi inherited the suit property and they became absolute owners in possession of the same. It was further averred that late Krishan Lal had brought one Ashok Kumar in his childhood from Kapurthala and he was grown up as his child in the family and was residing in the house of his family along with Shankuntla Devi. The defendant on 20.5.2000, approached Shankuntla Devi for taking shop on monthly rent of Rs.400/- in presence of Brijesh Goyal and Surender Kaur. The defendant offered to reconstruct/renovate the same for an amount of Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, Shakuntla Devi agreed to adjust the aforesaid amount in monthly rental till its liquidation. Tenancy agreement was execu ted on 20.5.2000 between the defendant and Shakuntla Devi at Paonta Sahib in presence of the witnesses. The defendant after renovation of the shop agaion approached Shakuntla Devi in the presence of the witnesses and disclosed that he spent a sum of Rs.21,761/- instead of Rs.15,000/- on the renovation of the hshop and proposed to incorporate the said amount and its liquidation in the tenancy agreement. As such additional tenancy agreement was executed on 15.1.2001, wherein it was agreed that the defendant shall pay monthly rent of Rs.400/- w.e.f. 01.02.2000 and an amount of Rs.21,767/- shall be adjusted in the monthly rent till its liquidation for 54 months.

4 The agreement was got notarized with Notary Public, Mr. Anil Kumar Sareen, Advocate. The original tenancy agreement was handed over to the defendant and its copy was retained with Shakuntla Devi. After the liquidation of the amount of Rs.21,767/-, spent on the renovation of the shop, on 31.8.2004, in 54 months w.e.f. 1.2.2000 to 31.8.2004, the tenancy for a fixed period of 18 months commenced w.e.f. 1.9.2004. Shankuntla Devi died on 14.05.2002 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and the plaintiffs became owners of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendant s topped paying rent w.e.f. 1.6.2005. The tenancy of the defendant came to an end on 28.2.2006 as per terms and conditions of tenancy agreement, daoted 15.1.2000 and thus, the defendant is in unauthorized possession of the suit property from 1.3.2006 onwards. The plaintiffs, through their power of attorney, hKapil Verma @ Lucky, are looking after the suit, who is residing with his father in the house adjoining to the shop in question. Though the defendant was persuaded to vacate the suit property, but he failed to do so and filed Civil Suit No. 33/1 of 2007, titled as Dinesh Kumar vs. As