ANIL CHADHA Vs. SHAKUNTALA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 1.5.1992 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a respondent in the eviction petition was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/landlady herein filed an eviction petition against Mr. Sunil Chadha under Section 14(l)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground of non-payment. The petitioner M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code before the Rent Controller for impleading them as a party in the eviction proceedings. It was alleged in the application that the landlady had filed false eviction proceedings knowing fully well that the applicant was a tenant and had been paying rent to the landlady. After sometime she refused to accept the rent and thereafter it was deposited in the court of Rent Controller. It was further alleged that the applicant was a necessary party and his presence was necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the disputes involved in the eviction petition.

(3.) The application was dismissed by the trial court for the reason that there was no prima facie proof to believe that the applicant had any interest in the property so as to implead him in the eviction proceedings. It was also observed by the trial court that it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to the proviso to Section 25 of the Act. This is the order which has been challenged in this revision petition.