- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Subhash Chandra Saxena v. Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition challenges an order of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, under the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The order allowed the application of Respondent No. 2, Smt. Janki Dulari, to implead Sharat Chandra Saxena and Ramesh Chandra Saxena, sons of the original tenant, Ram Chandra Saxena, who was deceased. The petitioner, Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena, also a son of the deceased tenant, contended that the application for impleadment was not filed within the prescribed time, rendering the proceedings abated and the application not maintainable. The Respondent argued that the proceedings did not abate and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Rule 22(f) of the Rules framed under the Act.
The initial ejectment application filed by Respondent No. 2 against the original tenant was pending when the tenant died on 29th April 1976. Respondent No. 2 subsequently moved for substitution of the deceased tenant's heirs, initially naming only two sons, Kailash Chandra Saxena and the petitioner Subhash Chandra Saxena, which was allowed. The petitioner objected, claiming other legal representatives had been deliberately excluded. Respondent No. 2 then applied under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Rule 22(f) for impleadment of the two other sons, which was allowed on 4th June 1979. This order is the subject of the present writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the application for impleadment of legal representatives made after the prescribed period under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act is maintainable or whether the proceedings abate ipso facto for delay.
- Whether the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and allow the application for impleadment under Rule 22(f) despite delay.
- Whether impleadment of some legal representatives within time prevents abatement of proceedings and permits subsequent impleadment of other heirs.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The application for impleadment was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
- Consequently, the proceedings abated and the application was not maintainable.
- The Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain or allow the delayed application.
Respondent's Arguments
- The proceedings did not abate despite delay in impleadment application.
- The Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain the application under Rule 22(f) of the Rules framed under the Act.
- The Respondent was not aware of the other heirs within the prescribed period and thus could not implead them earlier.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, A.I.R 1965 S.C 1049 | Implies that if at least one legal representative is impleaded within time, the suit or proceeding does not abate, and the impleaded representatives bind the entire estate. | The Court relied on this precedent to hold that since two heirs were impleaded within time, the proceedings did not abate, and subsequent impleadment of other heirs was permissible. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act, which prescribe a one-month period for substitution of legal representatives but do not specify consequences for delay. Contrasting this with Order 22 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which expressly provides for abatement if substitution is not made within time, the Court concluded that the Rule under the Act is directory, not mandatory. The absence of explicit abatement language indicates no automatic abatement of proceedings upon delay.
Further, Rule 22(f) empowers the authorities to exercise inherent powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to make orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. This allows the Court to entertain late applications for impleadment in appropriate cases.
The Court also relied on settled jurisprudence that a proceeding does not abate if an application for impleadment of at least one heir is made within time. In such cases, the impleaded heirs represent the entire estate, and subsequent impleadment of other heirs is permissible. The Respondent's explanation of ignorance regarding the other heirs was accepted as bona fide by the Prescribed Authority.
Accordingly, the Court found no jurisdictional error in allowing the impleadment application and rejected the petitioner's contention of abatement and lack of jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs and discharged the interim order.
The direct effect of this decision is the validation of the Prescribed Authority's order allowing impleadment of the remaining heirs after the prescribed period, confirming that such delay does not automatically cause abatement of proceedings under the Act. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the application of inherent powers and existing principles regarding impleadment of legal representatives.
A. Banerji, J.:— This writ petition is directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur under the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 who allowed the application of the Respondent No. 2 Smt. Janki Dulari for the impleadment of Sharat Chandra Saxena and Ramesh Chandra Saxena, sons of the original tenant, Ram Chandra Saxena. The petitioner Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena is one of the sons of the deceased tenant. Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the application for impleadment was not moved within the prescribed period of time, the proceedings abated and the application was not maintainable and the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow the same. Mr. D.P Bahadur, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that the proceedings did not abate and the Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain the application for impleadment under the provisions of Rule 22(f) of the Rules made under the Act. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused, the material on the record.
2. The Respondent No. 2 had filed an application for ejectment of the original tenant Shri Ram Chandra Saxena under Section 21 of the Act.
3. The application was pending when Sri Ram Chandra Saxena died on 29th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 moved an application for the substitution of the heirs of the deceased tenant that mentioned the names of only two sons, Kailash Chandra Saxena and the petitioner Subhash Chandra Saxena as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant. This application was allowed on 22nd May, 1976. The petitioner thereupon filed an objection stating that some of the legal representatives were deliberately avoided to be impleaded as party. The Respondent No. 2 thereupon moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C read with Rule 22(f) framed under the Act. She prayed for the impleadment of the two other sons of the deceased Ram Chandra Saxena. This application was ultimately allowed on 4th June, 1979. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Rule 25 provides a period of one month for making an application for substitution for bringing on the record the legal representatives of a deceased party. This however, does not state any where the effect if such an application is not made within time. There is nothing in the above Rules to indicate that the proceedings will abate if no application is made within a month of the date of death of a party. Since the Rule is silent in this regard the provisions are at best directory and not mandatory. The language of Rule 25(1) may be contrasted with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 provides:
“Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule(1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.”
5. If the plaintiff of a suit, dies, and all his legal representatives are not brought on record within the time allowed by law, the suit would abate. There is no such provision under Rule 25 made under the Act. It is clear from the above that where the legislative intent was that such a proceeding must abate it was clearly indicated. It is, therefore, evident that the Legislature never intended that where the substitution application is not made within time in a proceeding under the Act the proceedings will not ipso facto abate. Read with the provisions of Rule 22(f) the authority concerned shall have power to entertain an application in interest of justice.
6. It will be relevant to refer here to Rule 22(f) which permits the authorities under the Act to exercise powers as provided in Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and “to make any orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned.” The above rule specifically entitles the authorities under the Act to exercise the powers for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process. It is, therefore, evident that in a suitable and appropriate case the Court may exercise this power to entertain an application even made after the expiry of a period of one month to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party.
7. It is also well settled that a proceeding does not abate if an application has been made within time for the impleadment of even one heir of the deceased. It is always permissible for the Court in appropriate case to order the impleadment of the other heirs. See Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari . A.I.R 1965 S.C 1049.. It was held in the above case;
“Where a plaintiff or an appellant after diligent and bona fide enquiry ascertains who the legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent are, and brings them on record within the time limited by law there is no abatement of the suit or appeal, the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and a decision obtained with them on record will bind not merely those impleaded but the entire estate including those not brought on record. In a case where the person brought on record is a legal representative, it would be consonant with justice and principle that in the absence of fraud or collusion the bringing on record of such a legal representative is sufficient to prevent the suit or the appeal from abatement.”
8. Similar is the position here. Two of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were sought to be impleaded within, time. The respondent No. 2 in her application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C had stated that she was not aware of the other two heirs and consequently could not make an application to bring them on record within time. This has been believed by the Prescribed Authority. The two heirs who had been impleaded earlier sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased tenant and consequently there is no question of the abatement of the proceedings even on principle. The Prescribed Authority, while allowing the application for impleadment of the two remaining heirs of the deceased tenant, had not acted without jurisdiction, we, therefore, do not find any merits in the contention raised by Mr. Bhalla.
9. For the reasons indicated above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Interim order stands discharged.
Alert