AMRIT KAUR Vs. OM PRAKASH FATEH CHAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of her application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code by the Additional Rent Controller and thereafter by the Rent Control Tribunal, the petitioner filed this Civil Misc. (Main) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in 1995. Since then matter is pending in this Court and the eviction petition is also pending before the Additional Rent Controller. Respondent No. 1/landlord started his attempt to recover possession of the premises by Filing an application before the competent authority under the Slum (clearance & Improvement) Act in 1979. Ten years were consumed by the said authority to grant permission to respondent No. 1 for filing a petition for eviction. After obtaining the said permission, respondent no. I filed the petition under Section 14(1)(b), (h) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against respondent no. 2 Bhupinder Singh Bhalla in 1990. On 22.10.1990 present petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 claiming herself to be the widow of Sardar Jodh Singh, inter alia, contending that Jodh Singh and Bhupinder Singh Bhalla- respondent no. 2/tenant migrated to India and came to occupy the demised premises together as joint/co-tenants, therefore, she was a necessary party. She further stated in the said application that the petitioner was not made a party before the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act and no permission to institute eviction proceedings has been obtained against the applicant.

(2.) Strangely in paragraph 5 of the said application again she took a somersault and averred that if it was held by the Court that the applicant and her husband late Jodh Singh were inducted as sub-tenant by the respondent no. 2 herein then the sub-letting in their favour was lawful within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) and Section 16 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that according to the eviction petition filed by respondent no.1, it is stated that it was a case of sub- letting in order to determine whether the sub-letting was legal or illegal, the petitioner ought to have been made a party by Additional Rent Controller. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Kewal Kant Vs. V.K. Gupta 1971 RLR 77 (Note) 102, Navbharat Dal Mills Vs. Food Corporation 1993 RLR 73, Sim Devi Dayal Dixit Vs. M/s Rashtriya Electrical and Engineering Company through Som Raj 1983(1) RCR 37, Sardar Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. E.R. Smivasan and Ors. 1979 (1) RCR 576, B.H. Rangaswamy and another Vs. Mis Mysore Arts & Wood Works and others 1993 (1) RCJ 401. On the basis of the aforesaid authorities learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a proper party is one whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in South Asia Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Sarup Singh and others AIR 1966 SC 346 in which it was held that a sub-tenant was an interested person and hence he was a proper party and he should riot be condemned without a hearing.