Dismissed

Tola Ram v. Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2021CLA/16/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This leave appeal and second appeal were rejected. The High Court upheld the dismissal of an application by an appellant to be impleaded as a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, noting that the appellant failed to establish he was a tenant under the Premises Act. Consequently, the court found no need to conduct an inquiry under Rule 5. The combined appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for impleadment and the accompanying leave and second appeals were dismissed and rejected.

Tola Ram Vs Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civ. Leave To Appeal No. 16/2019

¶4

Tola Ram S/o Shri Mal Chand, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee, Through Its Secretary, Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee, Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

Lrs Of Smt. Basanti W/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Nohar , Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Deceased)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Niranjan Lal Joshi.
	Ms. Kirti Pareek.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.K. Bohra.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 22/02/2021

¶12

This leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant, alongwith S.B. Civil Second Appeal, aggrieved against order dated 04.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, Hanumangarh, whereby, the application filed by the applicant/appellant under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for being impleaded as appellant in place of Smt. Basanti has been rejected.

¶13

The suit was filed by respondent – plaintiff for eviction, arrears of rent against one Sohan Lal.

¶14

During pendency of the suit Sohan Lal died and his wife Smt. Basanti was impleaded as his legal representative.

¶15

The suit came to be decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 20.04.2015.

¶16

Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Basanti filed first appeal. During pendency of the first appeal Smt. Basanti died.

¶17

The applicant filed application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC with the following averments:-

(2 of 4)

[CLA-16/2019]

“Jheku th]

mijksDr vuokuh vihy dh vihykFkhZ clUrh nsoh dk LoxZokl fnukad 12-05-18 dks gks pqdk gSA clUrh nsoh dh dksbZ larku ugha gS izkFkhZ] clUrh nsoh ds erd ifr dk Hkfrtk gS] rFkk clUrh nsoh ds ifr ds vU; dksbZ HkkbZ ugha gSA blfy, izkFkhZ gh erdk clUrh nsoh dk fudVre dkuwuh okfjl gS vkSj e`rdk vihykFkhZ clUrh nsoh ds LFkku ij i{kdkj cuus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkZuk&i= vUnj fe;kn gSA

¶22

vr% izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks vihykFkhZ clUrh nsoh ds LFkku ij i{kdkj cukdj vihy dh dk;Zokgh tkjh j[ks tkus dk vkns”k Qjek;k tkosA”

¶23

The application was contested by the respondent – landlord. The first appellate court on coming to the conclusion that as the requirements of tenant as prescribed under Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (‘the Act’) are not fulfilled by the applicant, inasmuch as, the premises in question being commercial, no averments was made by the applicant that he was carrying on business in the premises with the deceased, rejected the application.

¶24

The present leave to appeal alongwith second appeal has been filed inter-alia with the submissions that the appellate court was not justified in rejecting the application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, inasmuch as, it was necessary for the appellate court to hold an inquiry under provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 CPC and in absence of such an inquiry, passing of the order rejecting the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC is not justified and, therefore, the applicant be granted leave to appeal.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CLA-16/2019]

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the first appellate court.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the suit for eviction was filed by the respondent – plaintiff under provisions of the Act.

¶30

Section 3 (vii) of the Act defines tenant as under:-

¶31

“(vii) “ Tenant” means:(a) the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or, but for a contract express or implied would be, payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and

¶32

(b) in the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub-clause (a), his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applicable to him who had been, in the case of premises leased out for residential purposes, ordinarily residing and in the case of premises purposes, ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death.”

¶33

A perusal of the Sub-Clause (b) reveals that in the event of death of the person as referred to in Sub-Clause (a) the surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir in accordance with personal law applicable to him, who was ordinarily carrying on business with him in the commercial premises as member of his family up to his death, is included in the definition of tenant.

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CLA-16/2019]

¶36

The application which has been filed (quoted above) reveals that the applicant except for indicating that Smt. Basanti had no child and that he was nephew of her deceased husband, claimed impleadment, without indicating himself as tenant in terms of the definition under Section 3 (vii) (b) of the Act.

¶37

Despite the appellate court dismissing the application on account of non-indication in terms of the definition of tenant, no averment whatsoever, has been made in the application seeking to set-up his status as tenant in the shop in question.

¶38

So far as the reliance placed on provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is concerned, the same applies to circumstances where there is a dispute about the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or defendant.

¶39

Present is not a case as to whether the applicant was legal representative of the deceased or not, the issue was whether without claiming his status as a tenant, he could claim his status as legal representative and for lack of any material averment in this regard, the first appellate court was justified in rejecting the application.

¶40

No case for grant of relief as prayed for is made out.

¶41

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶42

Consequently, the second appeal filed alongwith leave to appeal also stands rejected.

¶43

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶44

48-pradeep/-

Tola Ram v. Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tola Ram v. Janta Charitable Clinic Management Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jetaram Vs Tari Devi

Jagdish Singh Jaganath Singh Vs Amar Singh

Ashok Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Shyam Madhav Polybags Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Distt. Magistrate, Udaipur

Mohit Kumar Vs State

The Chairman, Managing Committee, Sesomu Girls College Vs Manisha Vishwakarma