SURENDER KUMAR Vs. RAJIV CHANANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the orders dated 18.10.2011 and 06.12.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the appellate authority whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as respondent in the rent petition titled as Rajiv Chanana v. Krishan Kumar Garg has been dismissed and the said order having been upheld in appeal. The facts of the present case pertain to a dispute regarding plot No. 99, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. The said plot belonged to Charan Dass Nagpal, who died on 17.09.1988 leaving behind a Will dated 18.09.1985 whereby, the plot in question devolved upon his three sons namely Surinder Kumar, Vishva Kant and Sanjiv Kumar. It was alleged that after the death of Charan Dass Nagpal, a family arrangement was entered into on 20.11.1992 where the portions were divided between the three brothers and the portion red vested with Sanjeev Kumar and he entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.06.2003 with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and the area mentioned in the agreement measuring 37'9" x 178' adjoining to plot No. 98, Industrial Area. Respondent No. 1-Rajiv Chanana is the son-in-law of Surinder Kumar Nagpal-petitioner, one of the co-owners of the plot. That before the sale could be executed, a registered Lease Deed dated 08.09.2003 was entered into between Surinder Kumar Nagpal and Krishan Kumar Garg (hereinafter referred to as "a tenant"), wherein, as co-owner he leased out the first portion of the half main shed towards plot No. 98 including office, toilets and construction of the shed portion measuring approximately 1100 square feet. The lease was for Rs. 14,000 and for a period of 5 years from 01.09.2003 to 31.08.2005 and there was an escalation clause @ 5%. 3. In pursuance of the said agreement, the sale deed was executed on 09.06.2005 by Sanjiv Kumar, the co-owner in favour of respondent.

(2.) However, the petitioner, who is also one of the co-sharer and respondent who is his son-in-law namely Rajiv Chanana had disputes as the matrimonial alliance went into troubled waters and an FIR was lodged on 05.12.2006 by the petitioner Surinder Nagpal and in the said FIR, there was a dispute regarding the plot no. 99 also and there were allegations that Rajiv Chanana had misappropriated the share of the daughter and cheated her paternal uncle.

(3.) That on 13.10.2005, the present petitioner-Surinder Kumar Nagpal filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'The Act') for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that the rent had not been paid from 01.09.2005. The said eviction petition was resisted by the tenant by saying that there were two other co-owners having 1/3rd share who were necessary parties and Rajiv Chanana had purchased the share of Sanjeev Kumar Nagpal and was claiming l/3rd share in the entire rent w.e.f. 11.06.2003 i.e. the date of agreement. It was also pleaded by the tenant that the petitioner had already received the rent upto 31.08.2005 and, therefore, the Court may pass appropriate orders so that he could pay the rent of the premises in question. Thereafter, on 09.02.2007, respondent no. 1-Rajiv Chanana filed petition for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the arrears of rent were there from 08.09.2003 and he was entitled for l/3rd share of rent from 11.06.2003, the date of agreement. It was also mentioned that in the earlier petition filed by Surinder Kumar Nagpal, Rajiv Chanana had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which had been dismissed and thus the present petition was being filed. The said petition was contested by filing written statement by the tenant on the ground that the premises had been taken on rent vide lease deed dated 08.09.2003 from Surinder Kumar Nagpal and, therefore, Surinder Kumar Nagpal was the owner and landlord qua the respondent-tenant and the respondent was paying rent to Surinder Kumar Nagpal regularly through cheque. That on 22.01.2008, the Rent Controller while noticing that respondent No. 1-Rajiv Chanana was only l/3rd owner, therefore, he was not entitled to recover the whole of the rent from the respondent assessed rent at Rs. 4,600 per month as provisional rent (which was l/3rd of 14,500) as provisional rent alongwith interest @ 6% + 200 as costs w.e.f. 08.09.2003, which was challenged in this Court in C.R. No. 2323 of 2008. This Court, in order to protect the right of both the parties, modified the order that the tenant would tender rent at Rs. 4,600 per month as directed by the Rent Controller but the Rent Controller should frame a preliminary issue as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the release of the arrears of rent to be deposited by the petitioner would depend upon the outcome of the said issue. It was also directed that the tenant may deduct the amount out of the total rent which he has claimed to have paid or is paying to Surinder Kumar Nagpal as allowed or permitted by the Rent Controller. That on 03.11.2006, the following issues were framed:-