J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THE Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
(2.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed as abated by both the authorities below. It is an unfort unate litigation pending since April, 1973. The ejectment application was filed on April 30, 1973, against the tenants, 15 in number. During the pendency of the ejectment application one of the respondents Raunak Ram died on February 11, 1975. No action was taken by either of the parties to implead his legal representatives if any. However, on April 16, 1982 an application was moved by one of the tenants that the ejectment application be dismissed as having abated since no legal representatives of the deceased Raunak Ram had been impleaded. Notice of the application was given to the landlords-petitioners. They pleaded that it was not necessary for them to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased in view of the amendment made by this Court in Order 20X Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), which came into force on March 10, 1975. According to the said amendment, it was necessary for the legal representatives of the said deceased Raunak Ram to move the court themselves for impleading them as the legal representatives. However, the learned Rent Controller found that since Raunak Ram had died on February 11, 1975, much before the said amendment came into force, the same was not applicable and the unamended provisions of Order 21I Rule 4 of the Code were applicable to the case. It was the duty of the landlords-petitioners to move the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Raunak Ram, respondent within 90 days of his death. Consequently, the application was accepted and the ejectment application was dismissed as having abated vide order dated June 15, 1982. In the appeal before the Appellate Authority, an objection was raised that the appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, vide impugned order dated February 22, 1984, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as not maintainable and returned the relevant papers to the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment in Order 21I Rule 4 of the Code came into force on March 10, 1975 whereas Raunak Ram died on February 11, 1975. When the amendment came into being, there was still time for making the application by the landlords and, therefore, the view taken by the Rent Controller, in this behalf was wholly wrong and misconceived. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Babu Ram v. Ram Kishan, 1982(1) R.C.J. 172; Janak Singh v. Vasanda Ram, 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 82; Rajinder Singh v. Surinder Singh, 1984(1) R.L.R. 389.;