GAURI SHANKER Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the order of Rent Controller dated August 5, 1980 impleading Smt. Ram Rakhi respondent as a party to the ejectment proceedings has been challenged. The petition for impleading her as a party was filed on the ' ground that she was the owner of the property in dispute vide sale deed dated June, 1, 1978. The learned Rent Controller allowed this application holding if it was necessary to do so to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the case. This was wholly an erroneous approach. Before the Rent Controller, the only question involved was that of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The ownership of the property was not in question nor the Rent Controller could pass any binding judgment on this matter. If the applicant-respondent had alleged that she was the landlord then probably it could be said that she might be a proper party. In the application what has been stated is only that she had been receiving the rent. In the absence of the clear averment that she was the landlord she can by no stretch of reasoning be said to be a proper or necessary party to the proceedings. It may also be mentioned that she is the wife of tenant Sant Ram. the application is on the face of it collusive and was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. But in spite of a definite plea in this respect, the Rent Controller completely failed to take notice of it and thus acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Vidya Sagar v. Kesho Kumar and another, 1979 2 RCR(Rent) 612to show that once the discretion has been exercised by the Rent Controller, this Court is not competent to interfere with the exercise of that discretion That decision was rendered on its peculiar facts and as such, furnishes no guidance so far as the present case is concerned. As already noticed above, the Rent Controller has acted completely in disregard of the principles to be kept in view while allowing the application for impleading as a party and has failed to notice the objections raised by the landlord. The discretion, therefore, had not been exercised in accordance with law and the impugned order was liable to be revised.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugn order set aside with costs to be borne by Smt. Ram Rakhi respondent. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller 4 October 28, 1980. Revision allowed.