IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-360 of 2021 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 08.03.2021

Sheela Wati @ Sheela Kiran @ Sheela (since deceased) through her LRs.

…Petitioner

Versus

Ravi Tandon

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate

For petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate

For the respondent.

(Presence marked through video conference)

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Grievance of the petitioners herein is qua dismissal of their

application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte

order dated 05.09.2013 and resultant ex parte eviction order dated

02.07.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala.

2.

The petitioners claim themselves to be successor-in-interest of

deceased Ms. Sheela Wati @ Sheela Kiran @ Sheela, against whom rent

petition was filed seeking her eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab

Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

3.

The respondent-landlord represented before the Rent Controller

that service of Court summons was duly effected on Late Ms. Sheelawati by

way of a munadi and also by affixation as well. Based on service report

submitted by Process Server, the Rent Controller passed an order dated

JITEN SHARMA

2021.03.25 15:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

05.09.2013 to proceed ex parte against the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati.

Later, ex parte eviction order dated 02.07.2014 was also passed against the

tenant.

4.

Resultantly, during her lifetime, the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati

vide application dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) sought to set aside the ex

parte eviction order dated 02.07.2014 as well recalling of order dated

05.09.2013 vide which she was proceeded ex parte. However, before the

said application could be decided, the tenant Late Ms. Sheelawati expired

on 15.05.2017 and present petitioners, on the basis of a Will dated

16.04.2017 executed in their favour, vide application dated 15.11.2017

sought their impleadment as legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati.

5.

The said application was hotly contested by the landlord, both

on the ground of locus as well as on the ground of veracity of the Will,

which as per landlord, was not a legally admissible document. Ultimately,

vide an order dated 08.02.2018 the Rent Controller partly allowed the

application for impleadment of petitioners as legal representatives of Late

Ms. Sheelawati, only for the limited purpose to contest the proceedings,

without giving any finding as to whether the Will was validly executed or

the present petitioners are legal representatives of Late Ms. Sheelawati, as

claimed by them.

6.

After passing of the said order, detailed issues were framed and

respective evidence was led by both the parties qua recalling of ex parte

order dated 05.09.2013 and eviction order dated 02.07.2014. One of the

grounds taken to oppose the right of the petitioners to contest the rent

proceeding was once again the same i.e. whether will was validly executed

JITEN SHARMA

2021.03.25 15:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

in their favour and whether they can act as the legal representatives of Late

Ms. Sheelawati, as claimed by them.

7.

The objection of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once

permission was granted vide order dated 08.02.2018, to contest the

proceedings as legal representatives, the petitioners could not have been

non-suited on the ground of locus-standi, is being noted only to be rejected.

The permission granted by the Rent Controller to petitioners to contest vide

order dated 08.02.2018 stood subsumed in the final order dated 02.07.2014

passed by the Rent Controller. The Court below was well within four

corners of law to sift through the evidence and gave findings qua locus of

the petitioner. The