JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. One Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar was inducted as a tenant by Lala Gauri Shankar Bansal somewhere in the year 1962-63. Surinder Kumar Bansal filed an ejectment petition against Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar after the death of his father Lala Gauri Shanker Bansal. During the pendency of the said ejectment petition, said Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar died. An application was moved by Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar to implead him as legal representatives of the deceased. The plaintiff opposed the said representatives on the ground that he is not the legal representative. However, the Rent Controller allowed the defendant to be impleaded as legal representative being inter-middler with the estate of the deceased. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the ejectment petition. In revision petition, before this Court, the landlord sought the withdrawal of the petition itself which was allowed by this Court on 15.1.1986. The order dated 15.1.1986 reads as under;-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petition be allowed to the extent that the application filed by him under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 be dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has no objection to this course being adopted.
In view of the above noted stand of the counsel for the parties, I allow this petition to the extent that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act is dismissed as withdrawn.
15.1.1986.”
2. After the withdrawal of the petition, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession on 23.8.1986. The said suit has been decreed by the Courts below. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants have filed the present appeal. It may be stated that the defendants had not led any evidence and their evidence was closed by order by the trial court on 3.3.1997. It was found by the trial court that the plaintiff concluded his evidence on 21.1.1988 and then the case was taken up for the evidence of the defendants on 21.7.1988, 11.11.1988, 17.5.1991, 16.5.1996, 21.9:1996, 9.12.1996 and finally for 6.2.1997. Consequently, on 3.3.1997 the evidence of the defendant was closed by court order.
3. Shri R.K. Chhibbar, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has raised three fold submissions. Firstly that since the ejectment petition was dismissed, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority operates as res judicata. Secondly that the defendants was not given adequate opportunity to produce his evidence to enable him to prove his relationship with the deceased Dr. Brij Bihari Lal Bhatnagar and lastly that Shri Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar was adopted by Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar many years ago in the presence of both the grand-parents and since they have died, it is not possible for the appellant to prove the adoption.
4. The first contention raised by the appellant is not tenable either in law or on facts. Factually, the ejectment petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.1.1986. Therefore, there is no finding which is final and operative between the parties. Mr. C.B. Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Gram Panchayat Village Ismailpur v. Pawan Kumar and Ors., 2000 H.R.R. 669 to contend that the previous ejectment petition was withdrawn thus, there is no finding which is in operation and final between the parties. Still further, the Appellate Authority has not given any finding that Shri Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar was the adopted son. The ejectment petition was dismissed holding that the premises in dispute are not residential premises.
5. Secondly, Shri Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar was impleaded only a inter-meddler with the estate of the deceased. The legal representatives are impleaded in the proceedings only for the purposes of prosecuting the case and the right as legal heirs is to be established in the independent proceedings. Reliance can be placed on the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Mohinder Kaur and Anr. v. Piara Singh and Ors., – A.I.R. 1981 Punjab & Haryana 130, wherein it is held:
“In essence a decision under Order 22 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, is only directed to answers an orderly conduct of the proceedings with a view of avoid the delay in the final decision of the suit till the persons claiming to be the representatives of the deceased party get the question of succession settled through a different suit and such a decision does not put an end to the litigation in that regard. It also does not determine any of the issues in controversy in the suit. Besides this it is obvious that such a proceedings is of a very summary nature against the result of which no appeal is provided for. The grant of an opportunity to lead some sort of evidence in support of the claim of being a legal representative of the deceased party would not in any manner change the nature of the proceedings.”
6. Still further the Rent Controller is a person designate who exercises summary jurisdiction for the purposes of eviction of the tenant. The findings recorded by such Court does not operate res judicata. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case reported in Amar Singh and Anr. v. Dalip, (1981)83 P.L.R. 649 (F.B.). Consequently, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and rejected.
7. The second contention that the defendant was not given adequate opportunity is again not borne out on record. As per the order dated 3.3.1997, it is apparent that many opportunities were given to the defendant to lead evidence but still he had failed to lead any evidence. Even the defendant himself had not appeared as a witness.
8. The last argument that since both the grand-parents of appellants and father i.e., Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar had died, therefore, it is not possible for the defendant to prove the adoption is wholly imaginary. It is for the defendant to prove the case in the manner which is permissible in law. The defendant has not proved the alleged adoption. The appellant having failed to lead evidence at the appropriate stage cannot raise such argument at this stage.
9. No substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.