ORDER
1. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present civil revision petition are that one Dev Jit filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that he was a specified landlord. After the filing of the application, the aforesaid Dev Jit died on March 5, 1989. Shrimati Kamla Devi filed an application for being impleaded as legal heir of her deceased husband Dev Jit on the groun+d that she was the widow of Dev Jit and that she was dependent upon him. The application was contested. Under the impugned order passed on May 25, 1989, the widow of the deceased Dev Jit has been allowed to be impleaded as legal heir of her deceased husband by placing reliance upon the proviso to Section 13-A of the Act which clearly specifies that the widow of the deceased-landlord dependent upon her husband is entitled to make an application.
2. At the time of admission of the revision petition it was sought to be contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in any case the Rent Controller did not record any evidence in order to find out whether Kamla Devi was the widow of the deceased or not. The counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, on September 14, 1989,
according to which the counsel for the petitioner did not contest the report of the Rent Controller bringing Kamla Devi, widow of the deceased, as legal representative in an appeal pending before the Appellate Auth-ority. The order was passed by the Appellate Authority when the petition before this Court was pending. The following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:–
“Present: Counsel for the parties. Shri Dev Jit appellant had died. Smt. Kamla Devi, Tarsem Lal, Subhash Chander, Naresh Kumar, Krishana, Kanta and Santosh, widow, sons and daughters of the deceased had filed an application for being brought on record as his legal representatives.
This application was contested by the respondent. Therefore, issues were framed and the case was entrusted to Shri S. K. Sharma, learned Rent Controller for submitting his report. He has submitted his report dated September 6, 1989 to the effect that the aforesaid applicants are legal representatives of the deceased. Shri Naresh Yadav learned counsel for the respondent has given his statement not contesting this report.
Therefore, the aforesaid applicants are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Now main appeal is fixed for October 25, 1989.”
3. In view of the above mentioned factual position, it would be a futile exercise if the case is remanded for giving a finding after recording evidence on the point whether Shrimati Kamla Devi is the widow of Devjit or not particularly when an affidavit has been filed by Kamla Devi respondent that she was the widow of Devi and that she was dependent upon her deceased husband.
4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the widow could not claim to be impleaded as the legal heir of her deceased husband under the proviso of Section 13-A of the Act as it was a personal right of the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building under Section 13-A of the Act which has come to an end with the death of a specified landlord. After giving
my thoughtful consideration to the argument, I am of the considered view that the argument is devoid of merit. The proviso gives the right to the widow of a specified landlord to be brought on the record of the case provided she was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death. It is not conceivable that a specified landlord has a right to recover possession but his widow as legal heir would not have the right to recover possession. All the legal representatives, in general law, are entitled to fight on the same cause of action having the same rights which vested in a person who has come 10 the Court of law. If the landlord had the right, his widow would certainly have the right to recover possession. If the interpretation as has been put by the petitioner’s counsel is accepted, the proviso to Section 13-A of the Act would become redundant. Moreover, no such rider has been put to the proviso that if the landlord dies after the filing of the application within the prescribed time, his widow was debarred from continuing with the application. If the legislature was wanting to debar the widow of a landlord, there was nothing in the way of the legislature to create such a bar in the statute itself. The very fact that a right has been given to the widow of the specified landlord to be brought on the record of the case means that the legislature wanted that the right to recover possession vested in a specified landlord can be exercised by his widow. To put any other interpretation to the statute, the same would be doing violence to the wording and the spirit of the proviso. Moreover, the proviso has to be interpreted liberally giving the rights to the heirs of a person who has unfortunately died but who has filed the application claiming benefit of Section 13-A of the Act within time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no evidence on the record of the case that Kamla Devi at the time of death of Dev Jit was dependent upon him. This argument has been successfully countered by the learned counsel for the respondent by reading from the impugned order that an affidavit was filed to the effect that Kamla Devi respondent was dependent upon her deceased husband. This being so, no other evidence in the considered view of this Court was necessary. Applications for bringing legal
representatives on the record of the case are normally allowed on the basis of affidavits. In such like matters, no detailed enquiry need be made by a Court of law particularly when the Rent Controller is deciding such like applications. In reply to the affidavit of the widow, no counter affidavit, it appears to this Court, was filed before the Rent Controller.
5. In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is devoid of force and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on the date fixed i.e. December 15, 1989, who would expedite the disposal of the application for eviction as the application is pending under S. 13A of the Act for a long time.
6. Petition dismissed.