KIRAN PARKASH Vs. VISHWA NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner landlord has challengedan order dated 29/10/1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhiallowing an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead Shree KrishnaSangeet Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mahavidyalaya') throughSmt. Sarvada Acharya, Principal/Superintendent as a party. The petitionerlandlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi RentControl Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Vishwa Nath Sharma,respondent. Vishwa Nath Sharma filed an application dated 9/04/1994 forleave to defend the eviction petition under Section 25 B(5) of the Act through Smt.Sarvada Acharya acting as attorney on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma. Theaffidavit m support of the said application was also filed by the same Smt. SarvadaAcharya. This application was filed through Shri Inderjit Singh,Advocate. Duringthe pendency of the said application for leave to defend, an application underOrder I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8th July, 1994 on behalf of the Mahavidyalayathrough Smt. Sarvada Acharya by Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for impleading thesaid Mahavidyalaya as a party. By the impugned order, the said application wasallowed and 15 days' time was granted to the newly impleaded party to fileaffidavit seeking leave to defend. The petitioner landlord has challenged the saidorder by way of present petition.

(2.) In the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the case of the applicant isthat the property in dispute was let out to the Mahavidyalaya through Vishwa MathSharma for residential-cum-commercial purposes in the year 1962 and the Mahavidyalaya is being run in the tenanted premises since then. It is further stated in theapplication that Vishwa Nath Sharma joined Government service in the year 1963.Prior to this, he was the Principal/Superintendent of the said Mahavidyalaya.After joining Government service in 1963, Raghbir Saran Acharya was nominatedas Principal/Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya who occupied the said post tillhis death. After the death of Raghbir Saran Acharya in the year 1985, Smt. SarvadaAcharya, his widow was nominated as Principal/ Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya and is working as such since then and is residing in the premises.Reference has also been made in the application to an alleged agreement dated 2 1/12/1965 entered into between Vishwa Nath Sharma and the then landladyof the property Smt. Krishna Kaur in respect of the tenancy of the entire secondfloor of property A-7, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, i.e., the property in suit. Thus,according to the applicant, the Mahavidyalaya is the tenant in the property since1962. The premises is meant for the residence of the Principal /Superintendent ofthe Mahavidyalaya as well as for running the Mahavidyalaya, i.e., the premises isfor residential-cum-commercial purposes.

(3.) It must be noticed at this stage that Raghbir Saran Acharya was the father-in-law of Vishwa Nath Sharma while Sarvada Acharya is his mother-in-law. Thepetitioner landlord filed reply to the said application opposing the same. According to the landlord, Vishwa Nath Sharma is the tenant in the premises. There is norelationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner herein and the Mahavidyalaya. It is further stated that the application underorder I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code wasmala fide and was with a view to foist the Mahavidyalaya on the petitionerlandlord as a tenant in place of Vishwa Nath Sharma, the actual tenant in thepremises.