GENDALAL Vs. RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by Civil Judge Class -II, Morena. It appears that a suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 for eviction from the accommodation in dispute on the basis of the allegation that the respondent No. 2 was the tenant of respondent No. 1 and the suit accommodation was required bona fide by respondent No. 1. The suit was contested and the defendant -respondent No. 2, Satishchand Garg claimed that he was not the tenant.

(2.) THE present petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party claiming himself to be tenant in the disputed accommodation. The application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the petitioner is tenant in his own rights and he has not been impleaded as a party. In fact, the decree is passed against the respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioner will be bound u/S. 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and as such he is a necessary party. The learned trial Court had committed an illegality in rejecting the application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner will be bound under section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It may be mentioned here that there is also a proviso appended to Section 23 according to which it has been provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such accommodation. Consequently, if the petitioner has got independent title, the provisions of section 23 are not applicable. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be Said to be a necessary party and the revision petition is, therefore, rejected.