JAGJIT SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the trial court, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") was dismissed.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision may be noticed. Charanjit Singh son of Jang Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 42,000.00 against Ajit Lal on account of rent for the period from 1.8.1998 to 31.3.2004. It was pleaded that he was the owner/landlord of the house in dispute which was rented out to the defendant @ Rs. 500.00 per month and respondent No. 2-Ajit Lal stopped to pay the rent to Charanjit Singh since 1.8.1998. Charanjit Singh in the rent application filed by him against Ajit Lal mentioned that the house in dispute was earlier rented out by late Jang Singh, father of Charanjit Singh and applicant Jagjit Singh also to the defendant @ Rs. 500.00 per month five years before the filing of the rent application No. 41 dated 3.10.2001. Ajit Lal took the portion of the house in dispute on rent from the applicant and paid the rent upto 29.9.2001 to the applicant against receipt and that on 29.9.2001, he delivered back the possession of the demised premises to the applicant. The applicant being the real son of said Jang Singh was a co-landlord of Ajit Lal regarding the demised premises and therefore, was entitled to receive the due rent, if any, from him. According to the applicant, he was a necessary party in the suit and moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as a party. The said application was contested by Charanjit Singh by filing a reply. The averments made in the application were controverted and a prayer for dismissal of the application was made. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 18.1.2005 holding that the suit can be decided even in the absence of the applicant being a party to the suit. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that the applicant was a co-sharer with his brother Charanjit Singh and, therefore, he was proper and necessary party and the trial court had erred in declining the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.