N J KANWAR Vs. RANJEET CHARLES SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM(M) 853/2004 seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-125/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated 6.2.2004 has while adjudicating upon an application for leave to defend on behalf of Shri. N.J.Kanwar held that Shri.Kanwar is not a necessary party as he is not a tenant in his own right.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent by her own showing stated that the tenant of the premises is Shri.N.J.Kanwar and not Panchshila Hospitality. In other words, having introduced Shri.Kanwar as the tenant he has now become a necessary party to the proceedings. He also refers to an infirmity in the order under challenge to the effect that the court has noted that there is no contract between parties to suggest that the tenancy was split into two parts and in the same paragraph noticed that the parties are bound by their earlier contract. Counsel, therefore, contends that Shri.N.J.Kanwar is a necessary party and should be allowed to be impleaded as a party.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent contests this vehemently and submits that a written agreement was entered into between the respondent herein and Panchshila Rubbers Ltd. of which Shri.N.j.Kanwar was the Managing Director. Merely, because Panchshila Hospitality seems to have stepped into the shoes of Panchshila Rubbers Ltd. does not in any manner change the status of Shri.N.J.Kanwar, who continues to be Managing Director of Panchshila Hospitality. The change was not in the knowledge of the respondent.