Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

were required to be impleaded as party respondents in the rent petition filed by the respondents. Applicant claimed herself to be one of the LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand, as she has inherited the tenancy rights in the same. She contended in her application for of impleadment that other LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand and Devi Chand are also necessary party, without impleading them as rt party, no effective order can be passed in the present petition. It is submitted that since the tenancy of late Shri Devi Chand and Trilok Chand was commercial, after their demise, the tenancy rights have been devolved upon the legal representatives. It is also alleged that respondents No. 1 and 2 (petitioners therein) were well aware of the inheritance of tenancy by the legal representatives but intentionally, they did not implead them as a party respondent in the case. It is a specific case of the petitioner that after the death of her father, she has also inherited the tenancy rights as a tenant in the said shop in her own right and as such she is required to be impleaded as a party respondent in the present case. Without impleading her as party, no effective orders, if any, can be passed or executed under the Rent Control Act. In Para-6 of the application, there is averment that applicant .

Trilok Chand and Devi Chand, tenancy rights have devolved upon their LRs including the present petitioner tenanted by late Shri Trilok Chand. During his arguments, he invited attention of this Court towards Para-13 of the impugned order.

of

5. He forcefully argued that once it has been held by the learned Rent Controller that all the LRs of deceased Trilok Chand rt have right to inherit the estate tenancy rights qua the shop in dispute and after they have succeeded to his tenancy rights, they can be proceeded against the eviction in accordance with the provisions of rent Act, application filed for impleadment by the present petitioner could not be dismissed. Mr. Bawa, contended that vide para-13, it has been held by the learned trial Court that inheritance of tenancy rights qua non-residential/commercial premises under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is governed by the general law of succession, qua the shop in dispute and as such, there was no occasion to dismiss the application for impleadment moved on behalf of the present petitioner. Mr. Bawa submitted that as per provision of HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 as stated on the said day, all the LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand and Devi Chand being the original tenant, have .

proceedings and as such same has been rightly rejected by the Rent Controller. He also contended that respondents are the dominus-litis of the case and as such they cannot be compelled to litigate against a person to whom they don't choose to litigate.

of Moreover, in the given facts and circumstances, she is not necessary party to the petition in question. It is also contended on rt behalf of the respondents that after the demise of late Shri Trilok Chand, there was no other tenant of the premises and none of the alleged LRs except the respondent Surender Mohan, was ordinarily doing business in the said premises. Since respondent namely Surender Mohan was carrying on business along with late Shri Trilok Chand in the premises at the time of his death, tenancy, if any, only devolved upon him and as such effective orders can be passed without impleading the LRs including the present petitioner-applicant. During the arguments, Mr. Naresh Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed in CMPMO No. 160 of 2015 decided on 5.6.2015 in Ramesh Chander Sehgal v. Rajesh Kumar and Ors., wherein, in similar circumstances, application filed by alleged LRs of original tenant was dismissed. Mr. Sharma forcefully contended .

Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased rt tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant:

Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case he or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the urban area in relation to the premises let.