Order 22 Rule 3 CPC- Tenant Can't Object As To Who Is Legal Representative Of Landlord, Such Objection Can Be Raised By Legal Representative Only: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that the tenant has no locus standi to aver as to who is the legal representative of the landlord and the said objection can be raised by the aggrieved legal representative only.
The Court was hearing a Revision Petition against the order where the application under Order XXII Rule 3 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed and the application under Order XXII Rule 9, CPC as preferred by the defendant for abatement of the suit has been rejected.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed, “the tenant has no locus standi to aver as to who would be the legal representatives of the plaintiff landlord. The said averment/objection, if any, can be raised by the aggrieved legal representatives only.”
Advocate Shambhoo Singh Rathore appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
The defendant-Petitioner argued that the suit should abate as no application for substitution of legal representatives was filed within the prescribed time after the death of the plaintiff. She said that only the wife, son, and daughter of the deceased plaintiff were proposed for substitution in the plaint whereas his four sisters are also legal representatives and should have been included. It was further argued that the suit property is ancestral, and the sisters, as coparceners, should be considered legal representatives. The trial Court determined that the application under Order XXII Rule 3, CPC was filed within 90 days after the death of Plaintiff therefore is within the limitation period. The Court also concluded that the sisters are not legal representatives by law and only the surviving wife, son, and daughter of the plaintiff qualify as legal representatives and therefore, permitted their substitution on record.
The Court said that in the present case, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter.
On the argument that suit property being ancestral in nature, the Court observed that present is not a suit qua any of the rights relating to the ownership of the property but is a suit for eviction against the tenant by the landlord.
The Court further said that once the application for impleadment by one of the sisters has been rejected, it cannot be held that the other sisters would fall in the category of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Revision Petition.
Cause Title: Kherunisha v. Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:32792)
