BIRBAL GABA Vs. SARABJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing the order dated 12.10.2012 of learned Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 had filed a petition of eviction against the respondents No. 2 & 3 from the suit premises, which was let out to their father, and which, after his death, was in their possession. It was averred in the petition that the respondents had partitioned the suit premises into three portions, without her consent and knowledge and two portions thereof, shown as 'A' and 'B' in the site plan, and one portion shown as 'C', were respectively in possession of the respondent No. 2 Kashmiri Lal Gauba (since deceased and represented through LRs) and the respondent No. 3 Nand Lal. Both these respondents were contesting the eviction petition. It was at this stage that the petitioner, who is none-else, but the brother of the respondents No. 2 & 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that one of the three portions of the suit premises, was in his possession, and thus, he was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the eviction petition. The learned ARC vide impugned order dismissed the aforesaid application, observing that the applicant/petitioner has not produced anything on record to show his possession of any portion in the suit premises. It was also opined that after the death of their father, the tenancy was inherited by his legal representatives as joint tenants and not as co-tenants, and thus, the petition could be filed against any of the legal representatives. In this view of the matter, it was observed that since the respondents No. 2 & 3 had partitioned the suit premises and since they are in possession thereof, the eviction petition was filed against them.

(3.) I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.