REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP©No.5312 of 2008)

M/s Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh & Ors. ..Appellants

Versus

Kartar Singh

..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and

order dated 10^th of January, 2008 of the High Court of

Rajasthan, at Jaipur being S.B. Civil Appeal No. 486 of

2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the

application filed by the appellants for being

substituted as legal representatives of one Santok

Singh who had died subsequently during the long

drawn legal battle between the parties, and dismissed

1

the Second appeal filed by the appellants as having

been abated.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated

briefly as under : -

The dispute relates to a shop situated at Madanganj,

District Kishangarh, Rajasthan. The appellants belonged

to a joint family consisting of Santok Singh, father of the

appellants (now deceased), and the appellants namely,

Man Mohan Singh and Jaswant Singh. Their third

brother namely, Balbeer Singh had already separated

during the lifetime of the father of the appellants and he

runs his own business.

4.

The appellants along with their father were carrying

on business of motor spare parts as well as a Kerosene

Retail outlet business. On 24^th of February, 1997, the

respondent filed a suit for eviction against the father of

the appellants Late Santok Singh (since deceased) and

the firm owned by him namely M/s Kanhiya Singh

Santok Singh on the ground of bonafide requirement. By

an order dated 30^th of July, 1997, the Additional Civil

2

Judge, Kishangarh, held that the respondent had failed

to prove his bonafide requirement and, therefore,

dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the respondent filed a first

appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kishangarh, Ajmer. On 5^th of October, 2002, the First

Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit

for eviction against the father of the appellants, Santok

Singh (since deceased) and his firm. Aggrieved by the

aforesaid decree, late Santok Singh and the firm through

late Santok Singh filed a Second Appeal before the High

Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur being S.B. Civil Second

Appeal No. 486 of 2002.

5.

On 18^th of September, 2006, the father of the

appellants late Santok Singh died leaving behind his

widow and three sons, out of whom the appellants being

two of them, were living with late Santok Singh at the

time of his death. The third son had already separated

from the joint family and started a business of his own.

On 26^th of October, 2006, the appellants filed an

application for being substituted under Order 22 Rule 3

3

CPC as legal representatives of late Santok Singh, having

specifically mentioned in the said application that they

were ordinarily carrying on business along with their

father as the members of his family till the time of his

death.

6.

On 16th of April, 2007, the respondent filed a reply

opposing the application filed by the appellants for

substitution as legal representatives of late Santok Singh

and prayed that the appeal be dismissed as abated.

7.

The High Court by the impugned order rejected the

application and dismissed the appeal of the appellants as

abated.

8.

It is against this order of the High Court that the

appellants have filed this Special Leave Petition, which

on grant of leave was heard by us in the presence of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. The relevant issue which is to be determined in this

appeal is whether the two sons of late Santok Singh

can be substituted as his legal representatives under

Order 22 Rule 3 CPC pursuant to the provisions of

4

section 3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of

Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as

the “Act” i