ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge is the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by Addl. Sr. Civil Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan but only insofar as he dismissed the application of the petitioner-applicant (hereafter 'the applicant') under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded as party filed in an eviction suit laid by the respondents-plaintiffs-landlords (hereafter 'the plaintiffs') against one Madho Das - the erstwhile tenant (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs 4/1 to 4/4 respondents-defendants before this Court).
(2.) The facts are that the plaintiff filed an eviction suit against Madho Das, the erstwhile tenant also impleading therein M/s. Kalra Gems, a firm under whose name and style business was being conducted from the tenanted shop. Following the tenant Madho Das's death, his wife, his son Sunil Kalra and daughters Preeti and Malvi were substituted by an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The applicant Rishabh Kalra then on his part moved an application for impleadment in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff stating that he Madho Das's grand son was at the time of his death doing business with him from the tenanted shop and had an interest in the eviction suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. Vide impugned order dated 29.8.2017, the application filed by the applicant for his impleadment in the eviction suit has been dismissed by the trial court primarily on account of the fact that the applicant did not fall within the definition of 'tenant' in terms of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter 'the Act of 1950').
(3.) Mr. G.P. Kaushik, counsel for the aggrieved applicant has submitted that by virtue of being grand son and a class-II heir of the deceased tenant Madho Das under the Hindu Succession Act and also by virtue of having been working with Madho Das from the tenanted shop at the time of his death, the applicant as a statutory tenant under Section 3(vii)(b) of the Act of 1950 was entitled to be impleaded as a party in the eviction suit. It was further submitted that the father of the applicant Sunil Kalra S/o Madho Das had filed an affidavit before the trial court in support of the impleadment application stating that the applicant was indeed doing business with deceased Madho Das from the tenanted premises at the time of his death. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the applicant was entitled to be impleaded as party in the eviction suit. The trial court has therefore, failed to exercise its jurisdiction for perverse reasons in not so doing.;