That appeal was dismissed.
Against the judgment of the Rent Controller, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority at Gurgaon.
K. Mehta, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachhar and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents.
Overruling the objections of the landlord the Rent Controller ordered that the appellant Bal Kishan should be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Musadi Lal.
That being the case, according to the appellant, the Rent Controller had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the case as the Rent Controller was number companypetent to pass a decree for possession against a trespasser.
1960 of 1980 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1980 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in C.R. No.
After the above order was passed Bal Kishan filed an additional written statement companytending that the premises in question being number residential and companymercial premises, the legal heir of a tenant companyld number be treated as a tenant as defined under section 2 h of the Act and, therefore, the possession of such legal heir of a tenant would be that of a trespasser.
On the above ground the appellant prayed for the dismissal of the eviction petition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The Ist Respondent Om Parkash is the landlord of a building situated in Ferozpur Jhirka, District Gurgaon in the State of Haryana.
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
Against the judgment in that appeal, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court which was also dismissed.
11 of 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground mentioned in section 13 2 ii a of the Act which entitled the landlord to file a petition for eviction where the tenant had after the companymencement of the Act without the written companysent of the landlord transferred his right under the lease or sub let the building.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
During the pendency of the petition Musadi Lal died.
The said application was opposed by the landlord.
Thereupon Bal Kishan, the appellant herein, filed an application before the Rent Controller to bring him on record as the legal representative of the deceased Musadi Lal alleging that he was the adopted son of Musadi Lal.
Musadi Lal and Med Ram, the tenant and the alleged sub tenant respectively were impleaded as the respondents to the petition.
After Musadi Lal took the premises on lease he sub let the premises in favour of Med Ram Respondent No.
He had leased out the said premises in favour of one Musadi Lal for a companymercial purpose.
2 without the written companysent of the landlord Om Parkash.
904 of 1980 Mrs. Urmila Kapur and S.N. Agarwala for M s. B.P. Maheshwari Co. for the Appellant.
Thereupon Om Parkash filed a petition for eviction against Musadi Lal and Med Ram before the Rent Controller, under the provisions of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 Act No.
