S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16849 of 2015. Case: O.N. Sharma Vs Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16849 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Devendra Sharma, Counsel
JudgesKanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXII Rule 3; Constitution of India - Article 227
Judgement DateNovember 20, 2015
CourtRajasthan High Court

Order:

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

  1. Instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia that the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Rent Controller, whereby widow and two daughters of deceased/landlord were permitted to continue with eviction petition, as legal heirs, be set aside, along with order whereby they were permitted to amend eviction petition.

  2. Facts of the present case are glaring. They depict sorry state of affairs. In the present case, eviction petition instituted on ground of bonafide personal necessity, was not decided even for long period of nine-years. During long pendency of the eviction petition, litigation could not conclude and the landlord expired. The deceased/landlord was medical practitioner. He wanted demised premises to set-up is own clinic. His widow, legal heir is also a medical practitioner. She was practicing, along with her husband.

  3. In the application filed for amendment, it has been specifically stated that she has also been practicing, along with her husband.

  4. The eviction petition, in the present case, was instituted before Rent Tribunal on 24.08.2006. The landlord - Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu, who instituted eviction petition, died on 01.01.2015.

  5. The application was filed on 27.02.2015 by his widow Dr. Vimla under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying inter alia that she, along with her two daughters, namely Ira Upmanyu and Iti Upmanyu be impleaded as legal heirs.

  6. In the application, following specific plea were raised:-

  7. Vide impugned order dated 20.10.2015, Rent Tribunal had accepted application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. and permitted them to continue with the eviction petition. A further liberty has also been granted to them to amend eviction petition.

  8. Mr. Devendra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in the eviction petition, it was nowhere stated by landlord that his wife is also practicing, along with him as a Medical Practitioner. In the eviction petition, it was only stated that the premises is required for personal-bonafide-necessity of deceased/landlord - Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Upmanyu.

  9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Phul Rani and Ors. Vs. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2110, to contend that personal-bonafide-necessity cease after the death of landlord and the legal heirs have...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT