SADHNA BAJPAI Vs. SEVAKRAAM BHOJWANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. In an application filed the petitioner-Landlady under Section 11 (h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short 'Act, 2011') for eviction of the suit shop, respondent No. 1-tenant moved an application stating that suit shop has been recorded in the revenue records in the name of Badri Prasad (petitioner's father-in-law) and, therefore, the application for eviction of the suit shop is not maintainable and the legal representatives of Badri Prasad, who are co-owners of the suit shop, are to be impleaded as necessary party. That objection has been allowed by the Rent Controller Bilaspur, against which instant writ petition has been filed questioning the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in the capacity of landlady as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act, 2011, has filed an application for eviction of suit shop and, thus, co-owners are neither necessary party nor proper party for just decision of the matter and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order.