RAMESH CHANDER Vs. GEETA MADHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition assails the order dated 1.11.1996, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's appeal bearing RCA No.176/96. The said appeal had been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.2.1996, passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 7 & 11 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 112 and 113 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, moved for dismissal of the eviction petition.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition may be briefly noted.

(3.) Smt.Bimla Rani, the predecessor in interest of the respondents in the present petition, filed an eviction petitioner under Section 14(1) (a & j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The said eviction petition was being defended by the petitioner on numerous grounds and pleas. During the pendency of the petition the respondents Smt.Geeta Madhok and Mr.Neeraj Madhok moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code dated 3.4.1995 for impleadment. The application was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller, vide an order dated 19.5.1995. The Additional Rent Controller purporting to treat the said application under Order XXII Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, allowed the substitution of Smt. Geeta Madhok and Mr.Neeraj Madhok in place of Smt.Bimla Rani, holding that since the property had been purchased by Smt.Geeta Madhok and Mr.Neeraj Madhok, interest has devolved upon them. The petitioner challenged the said order of substitution before the Rent Control Tribunal as well as in CM(M) No.108/96, to which proceedings I shall revert in the later part of this order.