JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's revision directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera dt. 27. 5. 91 in civil original case No. 3/86 whereby he has allowed the application under 0. 22 Rule 2 CPC filed by the Non- petitioners.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is the tenant of the disputed shop which belongs to Darjiyon-Ki-Panchayat, Nimbahera and used to pay rent to one Mangilal who was to collect rent as the authorised rent collector. Mangilal died on 26. 6. 89, and an application was moved by the non-petitioners to take them on record. The learned trial court vide its order dt. 27. 5. 91 allowed the application. Hence, this revision. Mr. Mehta has submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly substituted legal representatives of deceased Mangilal and they cannot claim any right, and right to collect rent goes with his death. On the other hand Mr. Maheshwari has submitted that the disputed shop belongs to Darjiyon-Ki-Panchayat and Mangilal being the rent collector, the non-petitioners have been rightly taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned trial court vide its impugned order dt. 27. 5. 91 has observed that when the defendant has himself admitted that the property belongs to Darjiyon-Ki-Panchayat. The defendant-petitioner being tenant cannot raise any objection against their substitution as he has to pay rent only particularly when Kanhaiyalal one of the L. Rs. of deceased Mangilal has already been authorised by the Panchayat to collect rent. That apart Kanhaiyalal, the legal heir of the deceased Mangilal being an agent fall within the definition of landlord u/s. 3 of the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is entitled to receive the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that if the order is allowed to stand, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss or injury. Thus, there is no jurisdictional error and the grievance of the petitioner is not sustainable. The learned court below has not acted illegally or with material irregularity while allowing the application under 0. 22, R. 3 C. PC, so as to call for any interference in the impugned order. In the result, this revision has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. . ;