Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander And Ors. vs Baij Nath Aggarwal And Ors. on 6 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR460
ORDER G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision petition arises from the order of the Rent Controller dismissing an application filed by Shanti Devi and others under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased.
2. Baij Nath Aggarwal filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') against Manohar Lal Sethi and others for their ejectment from the premises as detailed in the petition. Shanti Devi etc. moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. alleging therein that the shop in question had in fact been rented out to Manohar Lal Sethi by her deceased husband Mohan Lal It was thus pleaded that she being the legal heir of Mohan Lal was liable to be impleaded as a party to the petition for ejectment.
3. Baij Nath Aggarwal repudiated the stand of the applicants. He asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mohan Lal, and Manohar Lal Sethi and others. He went on to contend that he was landlord qua respondents.
4. The learned Rent Controller by order dated June 2, 1992 dismissing the application moved by Shanti Devi etc. by holding that the applicants wanted to raise a new controversy with regard to title over the property in dispute and if they are allowed to be impleaded as party it will entirely change the nature of the proceedings.
5. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Rent Controller, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find no merit in the petition. Baij Nath has moved a petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondents alleging himself to be the landlord. The case of the petitioners either is that the shop in question had been rented out to the respondents by Mohan Lal predecessor-in interest of the petitioners and, therefore, they were interested in the disposal of the petition for ejectment. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, a party can be impleaded as a party even against the wishes of t he plaintiff if the applicant is necessary or a proper party and in the absence of whom the matter in controversy cannot be effectively disposed of Normally, the plaintiff is the master of his suit and no person can be impleaded as party against his wishes unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the presence of the applicant is necessary for proper disposal of the suit and to resolve the controversy therein. In the present case, if the petitioners claim that they are the landlords, they are at liberty to file a petition for ejectment and take such other proceedings against the tenants either for recovery of rent or for ejectment, as the case may be, by filing a petition either under the Act or establish their claim as owners by filing a regular suit. In the present petition, the only dispute at the most would be as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between Baij Nath Aggarwal and Manohar Lal etc. and consequently as to whether the respondents are liable to ejectment from the property in dispute Rights of the petitioners will in no way be effected if they are not impleaded as parties. As noticed above, they can take appropriate proceedings where the claim be adjudicated upon effectively. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a petition for ejectment against the tenants on such grounds as may be avilable to them if they think that they are the landlords qua them. No purpose would be served by impleading them as parties to 'he petition for ejectment filed by Baij Nath against Manohar Lal Sethi etc.
7. Girdhari Lal v. Lila Kishan, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 423, relied upon by the petitioners has no relevance to the facts of the present case.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed. No Costs.