JITENDER NARULA Vs. BALJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25. 4. 2008 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession of property being Flat no. 47 (old), second floor in property No. XV-7840, Ram Nagar, New Delhi against the petitioner/defendant stating that the defendant was a trespasser in the property. Plaintiff also claimed damages and user charges. It is undisputed fact that defendant was in possession of property and claimed to be tenant and also took the stand that he had been remitting rent to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. The present petitioner made an application for being impleaded as a party when the case was at the stage of final hearing on the ground that his father, late Shri Sohan Lal Narula was the actual tenant in the property and defendant was only a nephew of his father and was allowed to stay in the premises. He being a legal heir of Sohan Lal Narula inherited the tenancy rights and was a necessary party.

(3.) IT is undisputed fact that the applicant had not been in possession of the property and had been living in Bombay. His claim for being impleaded as a party was dismissed by the trial Court observing that where a person appears before the Court at the stage of final hearing and alleges or portrays himself as a tenant, he cannot be entertained by the Court in absence of any material document on record. The trial Court also found that the averment of his father being a tenant, was merely a bald statement and dismissed the application.