ANIL KUMAR Vs. RADHEY SHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Kumar and seven others have filed this revision petition against the order dated February 22, 1983, of the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Panipat dated June 2, 1982, dismissing the application of the petitioners for being impleaded as respondents in the ejectment proceedings filed by Radhey Sham against Anand Parkash.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Radhey Sham filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for the ejectment of his tenant Anand Parkash from the demised residential premises, situated within the municipal limits of Panipat, inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent. Anand Parkash, the tenant, did not choose to appear and contest the ejectment application, who was proceeded ex parte vide orders dated May 5, 1982, of the learned Rent Controller, Panipat.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that Anand Parkash is missing for the last 2-1/2 years and they apprehend that he has died. They have not specifically pleaded that Anand Parkash has died. Simply because Anand Parkash has not be heard of for the last 2-1/2 years, it cannot be presumed in law that he had died. So, the petitioners cannot represent him unless they have any express and specific authority from Anand Parkash to represent him. This is not petitioners case. The petitioners have not produced any such authority. The petitioners cannot claim to represent Anand Parkash. The orders passed by the authorities below are perfectly legal and valid.