Mrs. Shiv Charan Kaur, Advocate and Another vs Surjit Kaur

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Shiv Charan Kaur and another, hereinafter described as the petitioners, directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 13.10.1998.

The relevant facts are that respondent Surjit Kaur had filed eviction application in the year 1986, against the petitioner. An order of eviction was passed. It was upheld by the Appellate Authority in the year 1988. Revision petition was also dismissed.

An application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners that respondent Surjit Kaur and died. She was the owner of the property and was living abroad. One of her close relatives, namely Surinder, had informed in this regard. Harjit Kaur was acting as her attorney and, therefore, with the death of the respondent the power of attorney had ceased to exist. Reply was filed to the said application. It was insisted that the respondent is the owner of the house. The assertion that Surjit Kaur had died was denied. The learned Rent Controller acting on the affidavit of Harjit Kaur held that the respondent is still the owner and is alive. The objections were dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

The short question that, in fact, arose for consideration was as to whether the attorney of the respondent could continue the execution petition or not? It is not in controversy that the order of eviction that has been passed certainly remains in existence. On 22.4.1999 the respondent was directed to file the address of the respondent. The petitioners were given ten days time thereafter to verify the same. Inadvertently, in that order it was been typed if the respondent was residing at Canada. But, admittedly, in fact, she is residing at Kenya.

In this Court also an affidavit was filed by Baldev Singh stating that, as per information received, respondent had died on 27.12.1997. The address as such had been supplied by the respondent''s counsel but petitioners claim is that they were not able to contact and even the letter that was sent had not been acknowledged.

During the course of arguments, it was suggested to the respondent''s counsel that he may produce the respondent. It was even suggested that keeping in view that she is stated to be residing at Kenya, a certificate duly attested by the 1st Secretary to the Indian High Commissioner may be produced. Somehow it was not acceptable to the respondent''s counsel.

Keeping in view the above said facts, though the order of eviction that had been passed is not being challenged but the right of the attorney to continue the petition is being challenged, it would be appropriate that this matter be looked into. It is directed that the learned Rent Controller would enquire into the said controversy. The parties shall be given two opportunities each within a span of 15 days to either party to produce the relevant material in this regard. No further opportunity shall be granted. They are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh on June 4, 1999.