G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) Shri Gurmukh Singh, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff', brought a suit for partition of 126, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. It was common ground between him and Smt. Lachhmi Devi, now deseased, that the said house belonged to them in equal shares.
(2) Smt. Lachhmi Devi died. An application, (I.A. No. 1534/80) was filed by the plaintiff for bringing the L.R's of Smt. Lachhmi Devi on record. According to the plaintiff, as stated in the application, Smt. Lachhmi Devi left behind her husband Sh. Asa Singh Kochhar, two sons, Kulwant Singh and Parbjot Singh and five daughters Smt. Parkash Kaur, Smt. Pritam Kaur, Smt. Harbans Kaur, Smt. Rajinder Jeet Kaur and Smt. Baljit Kaur. Notice of that application was directed to be issued to heirs aforesaid. Sh. Asa Singh Kochhar and Parbjot Singh husband and one of the sons respectively of Smt. Lachhmi Devi appeared on 25.5.81. They stated that Smt. Lachhmi Devi left a will in favor of Parbjot Singh and that, thereforee, it was he who was entitled to be substituted in her place. It was stated in the order dt. 25.5.81 that other heirs will have to be given notice at which the counsel for Sh. Asa Singh Kochhar and Parbjot Singh stated that he would bring other heirs on the next date and that their statements might be recorded.
(3) On July 28, 1981, husband, the other son and daughters of Smt. Lachhmi Devi put in appeorance and their statements were recorded. All of them stated that they had no objection to the appointments of Sh. Parbjot Singh as sole L.R. of Smt. Lachhmi Devi on account of a will in his favor. However, the plaintiff raised objection that Parbjot Singh could not be substituted in place of Lachhmi Devi unless and until he proved the will according to law. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed before the Deputy Registrar for 24.9.81 for further proceedings vide the order passed by this court on 18.9.81.
(4) In the meantime, present application (I.A.4161/81) was filed by Parbjot Singh. That application is to the effect that when there is no contest between the heirs and the other heirs are ready to give up their rights, there is no necessity of proving the will and that plaintiff has no locus standi to object that Parbjot Singh alone be not brought on the record in place of Smt. Lachhmi Devi. That application is also contested by the plaintff. (The order of 11.1.82 directing, indication of effect of S. 68 of Evidence Act & S. 63 of Succession Act is then reproduced). Learned counsel for Parbjot Singh urges that even if will is ignored for the present and is not taken as proved, it is only Parbjot Singh who is entitled to be brought on record. He contends that plaintiff has no interest in the share of Smt. Lachhmi Devi by any stretch of imagination and in fact plaintiff does not allege any such interest and that, thereforee he has no locus standi to contest.
(5) I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for Parbjot Singh. Had the plaintiff any interest in the share of Smt. Lachhmi Devi after her death, it could be said that the plaintiff had locus standi. That interest could be by way of getting some share by way of succession or to Lachhmi Devi. Even as a tenant, if one were, he could have the locus standi to contest the right of Parbjot Singh to be substituted alone in place of Smt. Lachhmi Devi. A tenant has a right or interest in the premises comprised in his tenancy and can before paying rent raise a controversy regarding validity of a will on which alleged landlord relies. Then Will shall have to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and shown to be valid. The only person who could claim some interest in the share left by Smt. Lachhmi Devi are her husband, sons and daughters. All of them have stated that it is only Parbjot Singh who should represent her estate after her death. Plaintiff does not claim to be tenant.
(6) Under these circumstances, I accept the application of Parbjot Singh and direct substitution in place of Smt. Lachhmi Devi. However, it may be made clear that this substitution is only for the purpose of the suit and will not effect any other proceedings.