H S BHANKATI Vs. POOMIMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Smt. Poornima Devi respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the Fertilizer Corporation of India respondent No. 2 herein under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction from premises No. B-2/19. Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi alleging hereslf to be the owner landlady of the premise and Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI for short) as the tenant.

(2.) In that eviction petition Shri H.S. Bhankati, petitioner herein, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as responddent in that petition. It was, alleged by him that actually he became tenant in the suit premises and came into possession of the same after execution of the tenancy agreement. The landlady wanted that payment of rent should be secured by some guarantor and he was working in F.C.I, and that for the satisfaction of the landlady, F.C.I, was brought into picture only for the purpose of regular payment of rent and accordingly a tripartite agreement was entered Into between him, F.C.I, and the landlady. As per the terms of this tripartite agreement all the disputes other than the payment of rent were to be settled between the landlady and the petitioner and that FCI would have no obligation regarding any dispute except to see that rent was paid regularly. In these circumstances, he alleged that he was a necessary party to the eviction proceedings and should have been impleaded as a respondent.

(3.) The said application was contested by the landlady and the Addl. Rent Controller vide his order dated 12.1.1990 dissmised that application by observing that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party.