Civil Revision No.7217 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7217 of 2008
Date of decision:09.01.2009
Raj Kumar Verma and others .............. Petitioners
Vs.
Surinder Singh and another .............Respondents
Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.
The revision petitioners are third parties to the rent control
proceedings who applied for impleadment on the ground that they are co-
owners of the premises and the petition for eviction filed at the instance of
the petitioner before the Rent Controller is not tenable. According to him,
the petition has been filed against a party, who is not in possession, after he
had vacated voluntarily and it is a dubious attempt of the petitioner before
the Rent Controller to secure their forcible eviction who have agreed to
purchase 2/3 share from other co-owners and presently in possession, who is
not at all in possession.
2. The revision petitioners also contend that the respondent before
the Rent Controller had remained ex parte and that itself would show that
the respondent is not in possession of the property and that they have no
interest to contest the petition. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition
on the ground that no evidence had been taken and the alleged agreement of
sale from other co-owners had not even been filed.
Civil Revision No.7217 of 2008 -2-
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
relies on a decision of this Court in Subhash Chand Vs. Hari Ram
Vol.CXX(1998-3) PLR 322 that the person who took a stand that he was not
a tenant in the premises and that in fact the premises had been let out to his
brother though not a necessary party, could still be a proper party and could,
therefore, be impleaded as a proper party for adjudication of the case. He
also relies on yet another decision of this Court in Satwant Kaur Vs.
Gurmail Singh and others Vol.CXX(1998-3) PLR 740, which deals with an
issue of impleadment of party as a defendant in suit who had purchased a
portion of the property from the very same person under whom the plaintiff
claimed to have an agreement of sale. The applicants seek impleadment on
the allegations that they have agreed to purchase a portion of the suit
property from other co-owners and in possession of the property and were
entitled to be impleaded.
4. I am afraid, I do not find any legal proposition as emerging from
the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel that is applicable to the
present contentions raised in the civil revision petition. The issue for an
adjudication before the Rent Controller is the existence of a jural
relationship of a tenant and the landlord. In the application, if any other
issue relating to title would arise between the parties to the lis as regards
bona fide denial of title, then it shall be always open for the Rent Controller
to secure the attendance of every party, who would be interested in obtaining
adjudication on such issues, to be brought on record. The third party to a
proceeding who claims a co-equal right or a better right than the landlord,
who had initiated the proceeding wants to come on record, could have his
rights only in a properly instituted civil suit and not in a rent control
proceedings. If the respondent against whom the landlord had filed a
petition had indeed abandoned the premises and is not in possession of the
Civil Revision No.7217 of 2008 -3-
property, the landlord will face the consequences of his wasteful action.
3. A person who is otherwise in possession of the property and who
does not claim his right either under the petitioner or the respondent already
on record, if he is not made as a party, his rights cannot be affected by any
order of eviction that a landlord may secure. The impleadment sought for by
the petitioners will needlessly complicate a simple issue for adjudication
before the Rent Controller. It has been held in a decision of the Supreme
Court in Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal (2004) 6 SCC 762 that a rival
claimant to title, claiming under a will of the original owner can not be
impleaded in a rent control proceeding initiated by a landlord claiming as a
natural heir of the same original owner. The underlying principle is that a
question of title could not be directed to be decided in a rent control
proceeding where the eviction is sought by a landlord not so much in his
capacity as an owner but on the admitted pleading of a person who held a
jural relationship with his tenant. The third party seeking entry, claiming to
be a co-owner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Civil Revision
Petition is without merits and deserves to be dismissed and thus accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
January 09, 2008
Pankaj*