AMARJIT KAUR Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/appellant is seeking the setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 9/5/2022/6/5/2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Rent Controller (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, vide which, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC, filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel inter alia contends that the petitioner instituted a civil suit on 4/8/2021, against the Avneen Kaur and others for declaration and partition etc. in respect of the property bearing number NH1C/74, NIT Faridabad, being owner in equal share of joint family property. She also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, ad interim injunction, which was allowed on 16/9/2021, wherein, status quo was ordered to be maintained. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, respondents No.1 and 2 filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') and claimed to be owners of the suit property by virtue of a sale-deed executed between them and Avneen Kaur on 18/1/2021. Learned counsel submits that it was in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner for impleading her as she was necessary and proper party, which, however, was erroneously dismissed vide the impugned order dtd. 9/5/2022/6/5/2022 (Annexure P-1) by the Court below by not appreciating that the petitioners were in fact trying to claim their title over the suit property by way of the rent petition and thus were aiming to dispossess the petitioner of her share in the suit property.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.