M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE shop in dispute is stated to have been given on rent by Piare Lal respondent No. 1 to Phuman Singh respondent No 2 Phuman Singh is stated to have Inducted Daryai Mall as a sub -tenant. Piare Lal respondent No. 1 filed a potion for ejectment of the tenant as well as the alleged subtenant on account of non -payment of rent, creation of sub -tenancy, without the consent in writing of the landlord and personal necessity, etc This petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller Piare Lal respondent No. 1, the landlord, went in appeal before the the learned Appellate Authority. It appears that the alleged Daryai Mall, the subtenant, had died before the learned Rent Controller had rendered his judgment. The appeal was filed by impleading the legal representatives of Daryai Mall.
(2.) MR . Sarin, appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of Daryai Mall, has raised an objection that his clients could no have been impleaded as parties because they did not come within the definition of the word "tenant" as given in section 2(h) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (Haryana Act No. 11 of 1073 (hereinafter called the Act). This provision reads as under: - - (h) 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose a count rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and in the event of such person death, such of his heirs as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Act and who were ordinary residing with at the time of his death, but does not include parson placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or parson to whom the collection of rent or fee in a public market, cart stand or slaughter -house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a Municipal, town or notified area committee. It has been argued that nobody could reside in a business premises and so the legal heirs of a tenant or a sub tenant occupying the shop or business premises could not be regarded as tenants In support of this contention, Mr. Sarin has relied upon Ganpat Ladha v. Shashihant Vishnu Shinde : 1978 (1) R.C.J. 511: A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 955.
(3.) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition of law put forth by Mr. Sarin but it appears that the argument raised by him really goes against the interests of his own clients. If the legal heirs of Daryai Mall cannot be regarded as tenants, then it would be no longer necessary to implead them as parties to the appeal It is settled law that a decree passed against a tenant can ipso facto be executed against a subtenant or his successors -in -interest also. Phuman Singh, the original tenant, is undoubtedly a party to the appeal If the plea raised by Piare Lal respondent No. 1, the landlord, succeeds that Phuman Singh had without his written consent sub -let the premises, it shall be lawful for him to eject the subtenant and his heirs, if any, in execution of an order. The order passed by the learned Appellant Authority by which it allowed the legal heirs of Daryai Mall to be brought on record only allows them to raise such pleas as are available to them so that they may not subsequently turn round and say that they were being ejected from the premises in dispute without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. As already noticed, if they are the heirs of a sub -tenant, no opportunity of hearing is in fact available to them under the law. There presence before the Court is only to effectively resolve the controversy vis -a -vis their point of view and to shorten the otherwise lengthy proceedings under the Act. Because of their presence before the learned Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority no injustice much less manifest injustice has accrued to them. In the circumstances, I find no force in this petition and dismiss the same.;