SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9th May, 2018, passed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner. The appeal arose out of an order passed by the ld. Rent Controller dated 2nd February, 2018, rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) The brief background is that an eviction petition was filed by Respondent No.1 - Ms. Raj Rani, a 92 year old widow, in the year 2011 against Respondent No.2 - M/s Sultan Singh Vinod Kumar through its proprietor Mr. Vinod Kumar, in respect of Shop No.2, Property No. R-4, Green Park, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter, "tenanted premises"). At the time when evidence had commenced in the petition, an application for impleadment was moved by the Petitioner - Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, who claimed to be the son of Mr. Sultan Singh and the brother of Mr. Vinod Kumar, on the ground that he had inherited the tenancy of his father and hence, he is a relevant and necessary party to the eviction petition.

(3.) In the said application, it was claimed that the two brothers were not on good terms and hence, the Petitioner was not fully aware of the filing of the eviction petition. The explanation for the delay was also that the Petitioner was never informed of the pendency of the eviction petition. The said application was dismissed by the ld. Rent Controller. The finding of the ld. Rent Controller was assailed in the appeal before the ld. Rent Control Tribunal, which appeal has been dismissed.