The Allahabad High Court has held that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice, holding that impleadment of a deceased person due to a bona fide mistake does not render proceedings void if the defect is subsequently cured by bringing legal heirs on record.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava passed an order while dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders of the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal passed under Section 4(3) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The dispute arose after landlords initiated rent proceedings against a tenant who had already died before institution of the case. The petitioners argued that since proceedings were filed against a deceased person, the legal heirs could only be added through impleadment and not substitution, rendering the proceedings defective.
Opposing the plea, the landlords submitted that the deceased tenant had been impleaded under a bona fide misconception and, upon learning of his death, an application was moved to bring his legal heirs on record. It was further argued that other joint tenants were already parties to the proceedings and no prejudice had been caused.
The High Court observed that procedural law is intended to advance justice and not defeat substantive rights. Emphasizing that “procedure is the handmaid of justice,” the Court held that hyper-technical objections regarding the nomenclature of an application cannot invalidate proceedings once necessary parties are before the authority.
The Court further clarified that mere impleadment of a deceased person, subsequently corrected by bringing legal heirs on record, does not make proceedings non est, particularly where no prejudice is shown and other joint tenants are already before the court.
Finding no manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the substitution of legal heirs. The ruling reinforces the principle that curable procedural defects should not obstruct adjudication on merits in rent and tenancy disputes.
Case details:
Case No.: Matter u/a 227 no.- 2014 of 2026
Bench: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Petitioner: Kush Saigal And 2 Others
Respondent: Gaurav Shukla And Another
Picture Source :