BINE CHAND JAIN Vs. KESHAV CHANDER CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Shri Bine Chand Jain, appellant, against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming theorder of the Additional Rent Controller by which he dismissed the application of the appellant under O.1 R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that he may be allowed to be joined as one of the respondents in the eviction petition as filed by Keshav Chandel; Chadha, respondent No. I, against RC. Jain and others, respondents 2 to 7-lRespondent No. I had filed a petition for eviction of respondents 2 to 7 from the demised permises on the ground of non-payment of rent/ personal bona fide requirement and on the ground that respondents 2 to 7 had acquired vacant possession of a suitable alternate accommodation The case of respondent NoJ is that the premises had been let out to Chetan Lal Jain, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 71 some time in the year 1955. Chetan Lal Jain died in April, 1977 and/ on his death respondents No.2to7 became the tenants-in-common by operation of law . A written statement purporting to have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 was filed before the Additional Rent Controller wherein they purportedly contested the eviction petition and long thereafter the/appellant moved an application under O. 1 R.10 of the. Code of Civil Procedure for his being impleaded as a party to the eviction petition/ Respondent No. 1 landlord contested this application No reply to the application was filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 10117. Respondents No. 2 to 7 have not participated in eviction proceedings subsequently. The appellant in his application has alleged that the premises had been let out by respondent No. I to him and to shri Chetan Lal Jain as joint tenants in the very beginning. It is furthes stated in the application that after the death of Chetan Lal Jain in the year 1977, respondent No. I, landlord, visited the appellant and agreed to transfer the tenancy rights in respect of the said premises in favour of the appellant solely on the consideration that the appellant agrees to enhance the rent to 'Rs. 300/ per month as against the earlier rate of Rs. 225/ per month which was agreed to by the appellant. It was also stated in the last para of the application, namely para 13, that Chetan Lal Jain and the appellant were joint tenants inrespect of the suit premises and on the death of Chetan Lal Jain the tenancy rights survived to the appellant alone and respondents No. 2 to 7 had nothing to do with the suit premises after the death of .Chetan Lal Jain. It is stated in the application that the appellant as such has become the sole tenant of the suit premises after the death of Chetan Lal Jain to the exclusion of respondents No. 2 to 7 and as such he should be allowed to defend the eviction petition as filed by respondent No. 1 129 against respondents 2 to 7 by his being impleaded as a party to the eviction petition. Respondent No. I in his reply controverted the said allegations of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant as also respondent No. 1, landlord, filed some documents on the record in support of their respective claims on the question as to whether the appellant was a joint tenant with Chetan Lal Jain and/or was accepted by respondent No. 1 as his sole tenant in the suit premises after the death of Chetan Dass Jain. The Additional Rent Controller, as also the Rent Control Tribunal, have taken note of the meterial as produced on the record by the two sides and of the facts and circumstances of the case as appearing on the record. The Additional Rent Controller in his order observed that the documents produced by respondent No. 1 prima facie showed that Chetan Lal Jain was the sole tenant of the demised premises and that after his death respondents No. 2 to 7 became the tenants in common in the premises and that the appellant does not appear to be a co-tenant in the premises alongwith Chetan Lal Jain. It was observed by him that the mere fact that the appellant may have been in possession of the demised premises as a brother of Chetan Lal Jain did not go to show that he was a joint tenant with Chetan Lal Jain, On this view of the matter the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the appellant holding that the same was not a bona fide application. The Rent Control Tribunal took the view that respondent No. 1, landlord, who is the dominus litis to the eviction proceedings, could not be forced to implead the appellant as a party to the eviction proceedings against his wishes and further that if the appellant was to assert his independent right to remain in the premises, he can do that by filing objections under S. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the execution proceedings, but he was not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the eviction petition against the wishes of respondent No. 1.

(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that for a proper and effectual decision of the alleged rights of the appellant it was proper, rather necessary, that the appellant was allowed to be joined as a party to the eviction petition. He submitted that in case the appellant is not allowed to be joined as a party to the eviction petition it may so happen that tespondent No. 1 may secure the eviction of the appellant from the demised permises in the execution of the order of ejectment that he may obtain against respondents No. 2 to 7 causing great damage and hardship to the appellant in which case the appellant may only be left with the remedy of seeking restoration of his possession by taking appropriate proceedings in that behalf including filing of objections under S 25 of the Act. It was submitted that thus the proper thing that out to have been done by the authorities below was to have allowed the application of the appellant.