AJAY KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dtd. 12/3/2019 passed by the Rent Controller, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ARC No.463/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for impleading him as respondent no.2 in the aforesaid eviction proceedings has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the brother of the respondent no.2/tenant, Praveen Kumar and that they were both inducted as tenants in the suit premises after the death of their father and were jointly paying the rent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction petition and he should have been impleaded as a respondent in the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in J.S. Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 570. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on order of the Calcutta High Court in Sudhendu Roy and Ors. Vs. Kashi Nath Malakar and Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 2092 to contend that when a joint tenancy is pleaded, the joint tenant is a necessary and proper party to the petition.

(3.) The impleadment application was opposed by the respondent no.1/landlord on the ground that no documents have been filed by the petitioner to show that he is in possession of the tenanted shop. Further, even the rent receipts filed by the petitioner are in the name of 'Parveen Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Sons', a sole proprietorship firm and not in the joint names of Praveen Kumar and Ajay Kumar.