KEWAL KANT Vs. V K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Kama) Kant, the alleged subtenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller, Delhi, dated 23rd July, 1971 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings instituted by the landlord Vijay Kurnar Gupta (respodent No. 1 herein) against Lajpat Rai.Mehra, the principal tenant as respondent .No. 2 in this revision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that Vijay Kumar Gupta landlord-respondent No. 1 herein instituted a petition for eviction on 21st December, 1970 against Lajpat Rai, tenant on the allegations that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the rented premises lo Kamal Kant, petitioner herein, after 9th June, 1952 without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord or his predecessor-in-interest, There are other grounds of eviction also mentioned in the petition with which we are at the moment not concerned in this revision. The tenant filed a written statement contesting the grounds of eviction and also urged that Kamal Kant was a necessary and proper party to the eviction proceedings.

(3.) During the pendency of the eviction proceedings Kamal Kant, the alleged sub-tenant, filed a petition dated 17th July, 1971, before the Addl. Controller under order I Rule 10 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he alleged that he was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings and be impleaded as such since one of the grounds of eviction was subletting a part of the premises to the petitioner. The landlord in reply opposed the application and urged that no notice of creation of sub-tenancy had been served on the landlord in accordance with the law and in the absence of such a notice, the petitioner was not a necessary or a proper party. This application has been disposed of by the Controller by the impugned order and he has relied upon an authority of this Court reported as Tara Chand v. MarriumBi& others (WO Rent Control Reporter, page 438)1 to support the proposition that a sub-tenant who has not given a notice required by section 17 of the Rent Act was neither a necessary nor a proper party and that the petitioner has not alleged in his application that such a notice had been given to the landlord and as a result, he dismissed the petition.