Upon the death of the original tenant, legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. Consequently, the tenancy remains a single, indivisible unit, making an eviction decree against one joint tenant binding upon all others, and further precluding parties to the suit from filing objections under Order 21 Rules 97-101 CPC.

Judgment / Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Application No. 19/2022, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC have been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being successors of late Braj Dulal Sen, filed an eviction petition before the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking eviction of Smt. Jhankar Devi and Kamlesh Verma from the property in dispute. The residential property was initially let out to one Radheshyam Verma. After his death, the eviction petition was filed against his wife, Jhankar Devi, and his son, Kamlesh Verma.

3. After filing of the eviction petition, non-applicant Jhankar Devi was hospitalized and, during treatment, she passed away on 29.01.2020. Thereafter, the learned Rent Tribunal proceeded ex parte and allowed the eviction petition vide judgment dated 12.11.2021.

4. Subsequently, the respondents (decree-holders) filed an execution application before the learned Rent Tribunal. The present petitioner, Kamlesh Verma, filed objections under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC, contending that the judgment dated 12.11.2021 had been passed ex-parte against deceased Jhankar Devi and, therefore, a judgment against a dead person cannot be executed. It was further contended that such a judgment is null and void.

5. In reply, the decree-holders submitted that defendant No. 1, Smt. Jhankar Devi, had been duly served through registered post but failed to appear, and hence ex parte proceedings were initiated. It was further contended that no information regarding her death was provided by the other defendant. Therefore, her death would not affect the validity of the decree, and the objections filed by the petitioner were baseless and liable to be rejected.

6. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 02.06.2023, rejected the objections and proceeded with the execution proceedings.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2023, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service of summons was not properly effected upon the petitioner; therefore, the ex-parte order dated 12.11.2021 is illegal. It was further contended that the said order is also illegal as it was passed against a deceased person.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that other successors of Radheshyam Verma were alive but were not impleaded as parties; therefore, the decree passed against only some of the legal heirs is not executable.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after the death of Jhankar Devi, her legal heirs were not brought on record; hence, the decree passed without impleading them is inexecutable. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order dated 02.06.2023 be quashed and set aside and the execution proceedings be dropped.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original tenant was Radheshyam Verma, and after his death, Jhankar Devi and Kamlesh Verma acquired rights as joint tenants and not as independent co-tenants.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the objections filed by Kamlesh Verma were not maintainable, as he was already a party to the original proceedings, and objections under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC cannot be raised by a person who was a party to the decree.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent also submit