J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.)THIS order will dispose of two civil Revision No. 81 and 345 of 1984, as both these have been filed against the same order of the Rent Controller, Kaithal, dated 10th November, 1983.
(2.)DAULAT Ram and Om Parkash filed ejectment application against Smt. Lachhmi Devi, their tenant and Ors. Respondents No. 2 to 5, who were alleged to be sub -tenants. Pending the application before the Rent Controller, Smt. Lachhmi Devi died on 26.12.1982 after filing the written statement On account of her death, two applications were filed: one by Rakesh Kumar who claimed himself to be the adopted son of Smt. Lachhmi Devi and the other by Sat Parkash who claimed his right under the will executed in his favour by her. Both of them wanted to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased -tenant, Smt. Lachhmi Devi. The applications were contested on behalf of the landlords inter alia on the ground that the tenancy premises were a shop and therefore, the tenancy as such was not heritable and therefore, the applicants could not be brought on the record as heirs of the deceased. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the applications as being not maintainable, because the tenancy premises being shop, they have no right to inherit the said tenancy. It was further observed that it was immaterial whether they were legal representatives of Smt. Lachhmi Devi (deceased) or not. Dissatisfied with the same, both the legal representatives have filed these two separate petitions in this Court.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that even if it be assumed that the tenancy, as such, was not heritable, even then they were entitled to be brought on record as legal representatives of Smt. Lachhmi Devi (deceased). In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon Hari Chand and Anr. v. Banwari Lal and another : A.I.R. 1981 P&H. 352.

(3.)AFTER hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners. The short question is, whether the Petitioners can be impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Lachhmi Devi (deceased) under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not. In somewhat similar matter, I have taken the view, in the case cited above, that the legal representatives having no right to inherit the tenancy, can be brought on the record to defend the case, on the pleas already taken by the deceased tenant. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited at the Bar. Consequently, both the petitions succeed and are allowed. Both the Petitioners, i.e. Rakesh Kumar and Sat Parkash are allowed to be impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Lachhmi Devi (deceased) tenant. As regards the dispute inter to the applicants i.e. the legal representatives, the matter may be get decided by them by way of a regular suit if so advised.