PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR KOCHHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of respondent No. 2 from the shop in dispute bearing property No. M.C. No. B-7/324-325, situated in the area of Phillaur Cant. in which the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") to become a party on the ground that the shop in dispute was originally taken on rent by Onkar Nath S/o. Vaishno Dass who was running the business of Commission Agent in Dana Mandi, Phillaur under the name and style of Vaishno Dass Onkar Nath as a sole proprietor. This shop was taken on rent by Onkar Nath from the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord, namely, Lekh Ram Syal. After the death of Lekh Ram Syal, his three daughters became the owners and were receiving the rent from Onkar Nath. After the death of Onkar Nath in the year 2003, the business has been taken over by the petitioner who had become the sole proprietor of firm M/s. Vaishno Dass Onkar Nath. It is also alleged that the petitioner had opened a bank account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dana Mandi, Phillaur in the name of the firm being its sole proprietor and the Market Committee had issued a license to the petitioner to run the sole proprietorship firm in the name of M/s. Vaishno Dass Onkar Nath. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 Satish Kumar has no concern with the firm and is not the tenant in the demised premises, therefore, he is entitled to be impleaded as a party. The learned trial Court, however, dismissed the application with the following observations:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has been throughout arguing that he is tenant in the demised premises and has been paying rent to the landlord.

(3.) On 21.11.2014, the petitioner was asked by this Court to produce the income tax return to find out as to whether he has been paying any rent to the landlord of the demised premises but in the income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15, there is no evidence of payment of rent to the landlord which could show that he is occupying the suit property as a tenant and is a necessary party in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that he is occupying the suit property and is running the business but in the absence of any evidence that he is occupying it as a tenant after the death of his father Onkar Nath and has been paying rent to the landlord, no relationship of tenant and landlord has been established to become a party in the pending lis.