S C NAGPAL Vs. RAJ PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9th of June, 1981, H. S. Malik filed an application for the eviction of his tenant Rajpal Sharma on several grounds including non- payment of rent. On 10th of June, 1981, H. S. Malik sold the property to the Hindu Undivided family of Hans Raj Nagpal including rights to recover arrears of rent and to continue the eviction application. It may be noted that the eviction application was filed through Shri S. C. Nagpal as attorney who happened to be one of the co-parceners of the Hindu Undivided Family which purchased the property. On 12th of June, 1981, the purchasers served notice on the tenant of having purchased the property and for payment of rent to them. 18th of August, 1981 was first date of hearing in the case on which date the arrears of rent were not tendered by the tenant. On 15th of October, 1981, an application was made by the purchasers namely HUF of Hans Raj Nagpal for being impleaded as a co-petitioner with H.S. Malik. The application was opposed by the tenant. Ultimately, by order dated 15th of January, 1982, the Rent Controller accepted the prayer of the applicants for being impleaded as co-petitioners in the application. However, it also came to the conclusion that H. S. Malik was no longer the landlord of the premises on 18th of August, 1981 which was the first date of hearing and the tenant was not obliged to make any payment to him on that date. It further cane to the conclusion that the added party could not take advantage of the failure of the tenant to tender arrears of rent on 18th of August, 1981 and, therefore, they will be deemed to have been impleaded as parties from the date of filing of the application filed for being impleaded as party i. e. from 15th October, 1981, and not from the date of presentation of the original eviction petition. Against the aforesaid order the added party has come to this court in revision.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Court below was perfectly justified in adding the purchaser as a co- petitioner in the ejectment application. To this extent probably there is no controversy between the parties.

(3.) Counsel for the added party strenuously urges that the Rent Controller by the impugned order has predetermined certain matters which had to be decided at the final hearing of the case because parties have yet to lead evidence and had to show the relevant law and this was not the proper stage for deciding those matters. It is, therefore, urged that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller to the effect that H.S. Malik was no longer to be treated as landlord of the premises on 18th of August, 1981, and therefore, the ground of eviction for non-payment of rent on the first date of hearing would not be available to him and that the added party would he deemed to be petitioners in the ejectment application from the date of the application to become parties and not from the original date, should be set aside with a direction that both the matters would remain open for being decided at the time of final decision of the ejectment application. The counsel for the respondents wanted to justify both the findings of the Rent Controller.