REEMA RANI Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenges order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri allowing the application of one Ajaib Singh for his impleadment as respondent No. 2. It has been claimed by Ajaib Singh that he is a tenant in the demised premises under some other landlord namely Kanti Kumar. The case set up by the landlord-petitioner is that Gurmukh Singh is her tenant who is liable to be ejected under Section 13 of the Act. There is no claim made against Ajaib Singh, respondent NO. 2. However, the learned Rent Controller accepted the application and permitted impleadment of Ajaib Singh. In para 5 of the order, the Rent Controller has taken the aforementioned view which reads as under :-

(2.) SHRI H.R. Nohrial, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has argued that the petitioner is dominus litus and is thus entitled to implead any person as a party and under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only necessary parties could be joined in the proceedings of ejectment. The learned counsel has emphasised that as per his own showing Ajaib Singh, respondent No. 2 does not claim any relationship with the petitioner who had sought ejectment of respondent No. 1. Gurmukh Singh under Section 13 of the Act. On the contrary Ajaib Singh has claimed that one Kanti Kumar is his landlord. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. Dharam Pal and others, 1989(1) RCR 704.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party because no claim by the landlord has been made against him. Infact it is admitted position that respondent No. 2 is a tenant under Kanti Kumar. Once there is no relationship between the landlord-petitioner and respondent No. 2, it cannot be held that he is a necessary party. The views taken by this Court in Vijay Singh's case (supra) fully applies to the facts of the instant case. It is well settled that even in case of subletting a sub-tenant is not a necessary party although he might be in possession of the demised premises. For the aforementioned proposition a reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Fromroze Taraparowala, AIR 1953 73. Moreover, the petitioner is dominus litus and if he has not impleaded the respondent NO. 2 as a party he cannot be compelled to fight litigation against him. It is needless to say that any adjudication between the petitioner and Gurmukh Singh, respondent No. 1 would not have any affect on respondent NO. 2. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri is set aside. Petition allowed.