Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Against the aforesaid orders of the Courts below, the instant revision petition was filed by the petitioner-tenant and the same was admitted on 24.2.1984.

9. After 18 years, when the matter was put up for regular hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord raised an objection on 30.10.2002 that since the sole petitioner had expired on 5.8.1988 and no effort was made by his LRs to bring themselves on record within the time prescribed, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner has abated. Thereupon, Ram Niwas, one of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 22381-CII of 2002 for impleading him as the petitioner and the remaining LRs of the deceased as proforma respondents. The respondent-landlord opposed the aforesaid application on the ground that an application for impleading the LRs of deceased petitioner could have been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') within a period of three years from the date of the death of the petitioner. Since no such application was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and the same has been filed after 14 years of the death of Deep Chand petitioner, therefore, the application filed by legal representatives of the petitioner does not lie and the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant should be deemed to have been abated under Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code, after the expiry of period of limitation, and the said abatement cannot be set aside as the legal representatives of the petitioner have failed to show sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement of the petition.

10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on this application as well as on the merits of the petition and have perused the record of the case.

11. Regarding the application for impleading the LRs of the deceased petitioner and for setting aside the alleged abatement of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition was admitted in the year 1984 and thereafter, the same was put up for regular hearing only in the year 2002. Since the matter was not taken up during the said period, the LRs of the deceased petitioner could not get the knowledge of the pendency of the instant revision petition. Even they were not having any knowledge of the counsel engaged by their father Deep Chand for pursuing the instant petition. When the counsel addressed letter to the party, the applicant came to know about the pendency of the revision petition and the address of the counsel. Immediately thereafter, he filed application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the strict provisions of abatement of the appeal under Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code are not applicable on the instant petition as the provisions of the Code are not strictly applicable in the proceedings under the Rent Act. He further submitted that this Court has even amended the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code vide amendment dated 4.2.1992, which was notified in the Gazette on 25.2.1992, according to which if an application for bringing on record the LRs of the plaintiff or appellant is not filed within the prescribed limitation, then the suit or the appeal shall not be abated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that undisputedly the tenancy in question of the petitioner was heritable after his death, therefore right to sue survives. Therefore, the are legally entitled to be impleaded as petitioners, so that they can defend their rights, which they have inherited from their father.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord argued that the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code are applicable to the Rent Act. In this regard, he has referred to Union of India v. Ram Chandran (deceased) through his Legal Representatives, A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 215 and Chandradeo Pandey and Ors. v. Sukhdeo Rai and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 Allahabad 504. It was further submitted that the amendment made by this Court in Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code, vide notification dated 25.2.1992, is prospective in nature, as held by this Court in Bija v. Raja Ram and Ors., (1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 493. Therefore, LRs of the deceased petitioner are not entitled for the benefit provided under the said amendment as the petitioner had expired long back in the year 1988 and the instant revision petition filed by him stood abated in the year 1991. Learned counsel further argued that the LRs of the deceased petitioner were very much aware of the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition and they have not shown any sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement of the revision petition.

19. In Mehtab Singh, Advocate v. Tilak Rai Arora and Anr., (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 269, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the provisions of Section 11, Order 2 Rule 2, Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 2 Rule 1(4) of the Code are not applicable in terms to the proceedings before the Rent Controller under the Rent Act. In Dharam Paul v. Roshan Lal, 1980(1) R.C.R., 503, this Court has held that the Rent Act is a complete Code in itself and by Section 16 of the Rent Act, the provisions of the Code have been made applicable to a very limited extent i.e., provisions regarding summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence. The other provisions of the Code have not been advisedly made applicable by the Legislature. In the Rent Act, there is no provisions for treating any issue as a preliminary issue, as provided under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code. The provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code are certainly rigorous provisions as it provides for abatement of the suit or appeal, when the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code for impleading LRs of the plaintiff or the appellant has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 10 (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 700 (S.C.) has held that the provisions of Order XXII of the Code are not applicable to writ proceedings.