GANDHI TYAGI Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1 as landlord filed a petition against respondent No.2/tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the said eviction proceeding the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) seeking impleadment on the ground of being the owner of the property and the said application was allowed by an order dated 17.3.1997. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 4.9.1998, which is now sought to be challenged in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set forth some of the salient facts. It is an undisputed position that the property was owned by one Shri Hari Ram Tyagi. Shri Hari Ram Tyagi is stated to have six surviving daughters. Respondent No.1 is the son of the step brother of Shri Hari Ram Tyagi and also claims to be the attorney of the daughters of Shri Hari Ram Tyagi. The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Shri Hari Ram Tyagi. Shri Hari Ram Tyagi's wife was one Shrimati Raja Devi, who was the sister of the natural grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that late Shri Hari Ram Tyagi left a Will dated 26.8.1988 bequeathing the property in his favour. Since the matter is contested insofar as the Will is concerned a probate proceeding is still pending in respect of the same.

(3.) The only aspect to be analysed in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party in an eviction proceeding filed by respondent No.1 claiming to be the landlord against respondent No.2/tenant. It may be noticed that respondent No.2 is stated to be ex parte in the eviction proceeding and an application filed to set aside the ex parte proceeding was also dismissed and that order is stated not to have been challenged further. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 points out that after the tenant failed to get the ex parte proceeding set aside the application in question was filed seeking impleadment and the counsel representing the tenant in the application to set aside the ex parte proceeding is the counsel who thereafter filed the application for impleadment and continues to represent the petitioner.