Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Kaur vs Rehumdin & Ors on 3 October, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Civil Revision No.5856 of 2012 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5856 of 2012
Date of Decision:-03.10.2012
Kulwant Kaur.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Rehumdin & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Gaurave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate for the Petitioner.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner who was an applicant for being impleaded as respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the eviction petition filed by Dr. Gian Singh Maan(respondent no.7) seeking the ejectment of the respondent nos.1 to 6(tenants) has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 25.08.2012(P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby his aforesaid application for impleadment has been dismissed on the ground that the eviction petition cannot be converted into a title suit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the applicant having purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 17.04.1989, he has a right to be impleaded in the eviction proceedings since Civil Revision No.5856 of 2012 #2# Dr. Gian Singh Maan is not the owner/landlord of the premises.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order since it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In my considered opinion, learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that the rent petition cannot be converted into a title suit. Reference can be made to decisions passed by this Court as well as Rajasthan High Court in cases titled as 2006(4) CCC 322 (P&H) Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors. & 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 313(Rajasthan) Omprakash Vs. Gajanand & Ors. Thus, the petitioner is free to invoke his other remedies available in accordance with law. The judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner reported as Jagmohan Lal Jain Vs. Sangeeta Jain and Anr. 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 660 does not lay down a proposition of law of universal application, that the alleged owner can always be impleaded, as in that reported case the tenant had taken a specific stand that the landlady was not the owner or landlord but it was her father-in-law who was the owner-cum-landlord of the premises. The said judgment does not advance the case of present applicant in any manner.
Dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE October 03, 2012 Vinay