RAJESH KUMAR Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala constituted under the Rent Act while dismissing application filed by the petitioner for impleading the petitioner as necessary party in the pending appeal. Some facts are required to be noticed. Landlord filed rent petition seeking ejectment of the tenant i.e M/s Janta Cloth Store through its partner Ramesh Chand. Before the Rent Controller M/s Janta Cloth Store took a stand that they had surrendered possession of the shop in question to the then landlord in March, 1997. Thereafter, Ramesh Chand, the alleged partner who suffered paralysis and the firm does not continue to be in possession as a tenant. Learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence, passed an order of ejectment dated 21.5.2019 against which an appeal was filed by M/s Janta Cloth Store through its partner Ramesh Chand.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner Rajesh Kumar @ Murli son of Ramesh Chand filed an application for impleading as party claiming that he is in possession of the tenanted property. The application was contested by the landlord. Learned Appellate Authority on appreciation of the record dismissed the application.

(3.) This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with her able assistance gone through the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to receipts dated 21.9.2000 and 27.9.1997 has submitted that it is the petitioner who is in possession of the property as a tenant and therefore, the Appellate Authority has committed an error in dismissing the application. She relied upon judgments in Devinder Singh Qaumi vs. Kulwant Singh Nijjar and another 2016 (1) RCR (Rent) 613 and in Jaimal Singh vs. Ashok Kumar 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 372.