ANIL KUMAR Vs. CHAUDHARY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 619 and 620 of 1991.

(2.) FACTS have been taken from Civil Revision 619 of 1991. This revision is directed against the order of learned Rent Controller dated November 17, 1990 allowing an application filed by Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar son of Lajpat Rai under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) BANARSI Dass filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Chaudhary Ram for his ejectment from the premises as detailed in the said petition. Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. alleging therein that they had purchased 3/4th share in the shop in dispute through registered sale deed dated April 19, 1989 from Raj Dulari wife of Raghunath, its previous owner. It was thus, pleaded that they were liable to be impleaded as parties to the Petition for ejectment. The application was opposed by Anil Kumar who had in the meantime been substituted for Banarsi Dass, the latter having died. It was asserted by Anil Kumar that he was the owner and landlord of the property in dispute on the basis of a Will executed by Banarsi Dass in his favour and that Chaudhary Ram respondent was tenant under him, who had been paying rent thereof earlier to his father Banarsi Dass and thereafter to him and, thus there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further asserted the applicants Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar had nothing to do with the demised premises as Raj Dulari was not the owner of the premises and even if she had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants, the same was illegal, void and not binding upon his rights. It is further the case of Anil Kumar that on the basis of the said sale deed, the applicants cannot be treated as owners or the landlords of the property in dispute and, in any case, they cannot be impleaded as parties being neither necessary not proper parties. Anil Kumar claimed himself to be an absolute owner of the premises. This stand was controverted by the applicants.