MOHINI KAPUR,J. - (1.) ON 24.5.1981, the non-petitioner instituted a suit for eviction from his shop on grounds of default in payment of rent. The defendant was one Partap Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit on 28.1.1981. The non-petitioner moved an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Partap Singh and they were five sons and one widow. On 23.1.1982, the Court passed an order to bring on record only one of the legal-representatives as mentioned in the application and Uttamjit Singh came to be substituted with the consent of the parties. Thereafter, his written-statement was filed and the provisional rent was determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on 21.5.1982. It may be mentioned that the rent determined by the Court was not deposited by Uttamjit Singh.
(2.) ON 24.2.1983, the present petitioner Ranjit Singh who is also a son of Partap Singh moved an application for being made a party on the ground that he was also carrying on his business in the shop which was rented out to Partap Singh and he was also his heir and should be made a party. This application was allowed on 6.3.1983, and he filed a written-statement on 8.2.1985. In the meantime on 27.5.1982, the non-petitioners moved an application under Section 13(3) of the Act for striking out the defence of the tenant as he had failed to comply with the order passed by the Court under Section 13(3) of the Act. This application had been accepted by the learned Munsif, by his order dated 26.3.1984 and has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota by order dated 30.9.1986. Against this decision the petitioner has come up in his revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court did not impleaded all the legal representatives of deceased Partap Singh on record and without bringing them on record, an order under Section 13(3) of the Act could not be passed. According to him when the present petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, he could not be expected to comply with the order under Section 13(3) and deposit the rent, he cannot be made to face the consequences of non-deposit of the same.
(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has laid emphasis on the fact that it was Uttamjit Singh who was doing business in this shop while the present petitioner was doing some other work and it was with the consent of all the legal representatives that they had decided to appoint Uttamjit Singh as the person to contest the suit which had been filed against Pratap Singh. It is also contended that the present petitioner cannot be said to be a tenant in accordance with the provision of Section 13(3)(vii) of the Act as it is only the person who is doing business in the shop who can be said to be a legal representative of the deceased tenant.;