PRIT PAL KAUR Vs. BHARTI CELLULAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, facts of the present case are that respondent No. 2 and 3 herein filed an eviction petition against respondent No. 1 herein under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that tenant has failed to pay rent towards the share of the landlords w.e.f. March, 2008. It is alleged in the eviction petition that tenanted property was earlier owned by Gurpartap Singh Sekhon along with respondents No. 2 and 3 herein and Capt. Sarabjit Singh Sekhon and Mrs. Sheena Sekhon. Gurpartap Singh Sekhon was having 1/3rd share in the property in dispute and has executed registered will dated 17.3.2005 in favour of the original petitioners/respondents No. 2 and 3 herein. It is further averred that after the death of Gurpartap Singh Sekhon on 5.6.2008, the original petitioners/respondents No. 2 and 3 have become entitled to the rent from respondent No. 1 to the extent of 2/3rd share.

(3.) In the eviction petition, present petitioner has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment saying in fact Gurpartap Singh Sekhon has executed the will about his share on 22.7.2005. In view of the will dated 22.7.2005, in favour of the present petitioner-applicant, alleged will dated 17.3.2005 in favour of the original petitioners-respondents No. 2 and 3 has no effect. It is further averred that the dispute as to whether which of wills is genuine, is sub-judice before the competent Civil Court. It is further averred by the petitioner - applicant herein that the tenant is paying rent to the applicant admitting the applicant as owner/landlord of the tenanted property to the extent of 1/3rd share earlier owned by Gurpartap Singh Sekhon. The Rent Controller rejected the application moved by the applicant - petitioner herein vide impugned order, thereby holding that present eviction petition is filed against respondent No. 1 on account of non-payment of arrears of rent and the Rent Controller is to adjudicate the matter regarding default in payment of rent and any other breach of condition of tenancy and the Rent Controller is not to adjudicate upon anyone's right to the title of the property.