SURJIT KAUR Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's application to implead Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi, as respondents, in an eviction petition filed against Sh. Anil kumar son of Sh. Satpal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been dismissed on 3/11/2017 by the Rent Controller. In the unamended petition, the petitioner claims that Sh. Anil Kumar is his tenant and she bonafidely requires the premises for her own use and occupation.

(2.) While contesting, the respondent alleged that the petition is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties as he along with his brother Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi are also in possession. It was stated that originally their predecessor, namely, Sh. Satpal was the tenant in occupation.

(3.) The petitioner's application has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to assert categorically, 'As to whether Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi are also tenants in occupation or not?" It has been held that the application moved by the petitioner is not particularly clear about the relief sought.