AMIT GUPTA Vs. MANJU BALA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2013 vide which his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed. Record shows that the respondent (Manu Bala Gupta) had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRCA. Pramod Goel has been described as respondent No. 2. The ground of eviction were contained in para 18(a); the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for her use. The petition was contested; leave to defend was granted to respondent No. 2 and he had filed his written statement. The parties led their respective evidence. Relevant would it be to state that this petition is of the year 2009 having been filed in January, 2009. It was only after the evidence of the landlord was closed that the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code came to be filed. This was on 31.8.2012. The averments made in this application have been perused. Submission is that the petitioner who is admittedly a joint tenant along with Pramod Goel has found that his interest is not being defended by Pramod Goel; his rights not being safe in the hands of Pramod Goel, he had sought impleadment.

(2.) In the reply filed by the respondent to the aforenoted application, the averments made in the application had been disputed. It was pointed out that this application is only a delaying tactic.

(3.) This application had been dismissed by the impugned order.