a) Suit filed for eviction of tenant, from property named as "ABC"
b) The Owner dies, after filing suit, but has made a registered Will, in his life-time, bequeathing his "ABC" property to say Mr. Golmal, a non-heir (presuming). and rest "EFG" property to "XYZ" his real Son (legal heir).
c) The tenant holds "ABC" property, in lawful possesion. The deceased owner HAD filed suit for tenant eviction from this "ABC" property.
d) The new apparent owner Mr. Golmal, derives right of property, suit and title, "ONLY & ONLY" after the will of the deceased has been "probated" and not before the probate. Effectively, he does not derive any right even to represent the "ABC" property in ANY court of law, before the "probate" procedures and orders of the competent court, favouring Mr. Golmal.
e) It will be a Violation of Law, if Mr. Golmal takes of right of property, suit and title, and commences any legal proceedings (eviction, sale, lease, etc...) without having the will "probated" which is mandatory in presidency towns.
f) Now the new apparent-owner Mr. Golmal, seeks to continue Eviction proceedings against the tenant in the matter of "ABC" property, without having the deceased's will probated, specially so in terms of "ABC" property.
g) HERE MR. GOLMAL, is a "legal nobody" as far "ABC" property is concerned, since he has not probated the will and hence has not derived any legal right to property, suit and title. HENCE MR. GOLMAL WILL BE ACTUALLY "MISREPRESENTING" AS OWNER in the court, in a eviction suit in which he has no legal status or say standing.
h) ONLY a registered and legal owner, (or a POA holder) can file eviction proceedings. Here Mr. Golmal, is NOT THE LEGAL OWNER of the property, till the property rights has been transferred to his own name, via a probate order. Hence Mr. Golmal cannot represent or persue the eviction proceedings against the tenant. The tenant can object to this representation.
i) IF the Tenant, objects and requests the court to take congnizance of such "violation of law", that is the will is not probated by the beneficiary of the property and that such beneficiary does not derive any legal right for eviction proceedings, till the probate is in the favour of Mr. Golmal.
j) The Court is bound to keep the matter in abeyance, IF THE TENANT OBJECTS as suggested above.
k) Hence it can be seen from the above example, that a Tenant has complete right to object in the execution of the will, citing Violation of Law, specially more so when the tenant himself is not a beneficiary, in a Tenant Eviction suit.
1. If the Judiciary is pointed that the matter under the judicial consideration, is in Violation of certain Laws, procedures, THEN the judiciary is not entitled to continue consideration of the matter. It will result in "Bad or Invalid" justice and will be against the principles of Natural Justice.
2. Anybody (even a non-party like a tenant) can ask the court to take suo-motto cognizance of such violation of law, in the matter instant and place objections, which the judiciary is duty-bound to take cognizance and hold the matter in abeyance, till rectification of any Violation of Law.
3. If a Will is mandatorily required to be "probated" and has not been done, THEN it is a "Violation of Law", which even a non-party like a tenant, can request the court to take cognizance, before hearing the actual matter.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal