SUDHA RANI Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that demised premises were let out on 26.9.1983 by the previous landlady/owner of the property in question to the Post Master General, who executed the lease on behalf of the President of India.

(2.) Apetition was filed by the petitioners-Sudha Rani and Madhu Bansal on the basis of a Will. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the tenant-Post Master General attorned to the petitioners. The eviction petition was filed on the ground as mentioned under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. sub-letting, assigning or parting with the tenanted premises in favour of respondent no. 4 in the eviction petition-Smt. Sita Devi. Additional Rent Controller returned the finding that it was one Sri Pal Jain, who was the Sub Post Master in charge of the Post Office at the relevant time who unlawfully inducted Smt. Sita Devi in the disputed premises. From the evidence on record and by virtue of lease deed, which is Ex. Public Witness 1/2 as well as taking into consideration the evidence brought by Sita Devi and the pleadings holding that the premises has been sub-let unauthorisedly to Smt. Sita Devi an eviction order was passed against the respondents.

(3.) At the outset Mr. Sahai has contended that when the appeal was filed before the Rent Control Tribunal by Smt. Sita Devi, respondents 1 to 3 in the eviction petition i.e. Post Master General, Senior Superintending Post Offices Delhi, East Division and Secretary to the Ministry of Communication, Dak & Tar Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi were not impleaded as respondents. Mr. Sahai has contended that aforesaid three parties were necessary parties to adjudicate the dispute as it was held by the Additional Rent Controller that Sita Devi was unauthorisedly inducted by the aforesaid parties and non-impleading of these necessary parties by the appellant Sita Devi before the Rent Control Tribunal, would make the appeal not maintainable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Ch. Surat Singh (Dead) & Ors. Vs. ManoharLal& Ors. AIR 1971 SC 240.