PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH SAINI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short to be referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller on application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), permitting respondents No. 4 and 5 to be impleaded as parties in the eviction petition. The petitioner claims himself to be a non Resident Indian (NRI) and seeking eviction of respondent No. 1-tenant under Section 13-B of the Act. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the eviction application as they are residing in the house with respondent No. 1. Amar Singh father of the petitioner was owner of the house in question which devolved upon Kartar Kaur mother of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner claimed that Kartar Kaur executed a Will dated 15.06.1992 in favour of the petitioner in her sound disposing mind. Kartar Kaur died on 07.12.1998. On the death of Kartar Kaur, the petitioner became owner of the house in question and entry in his favour was also made in the municipal records in the year 2006. It was stated that Kartar Kaur rented out the house in question to respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- in the year 1974 which was increased to Rs. 600/- per month with effect from 01.04.2002. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have paid arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate in June, 2006 when the petitioner visited India.

(2.) The eviction petition was instituted on 07.04.2011. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed application dated 23.04.2011 for leave to contest denying existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that Kartar Kaur, real sister of Piara Singh father of respondents No. 1 to 3, while leaving for Canada handed over possession of the house to the respondents. The house at that time was in a dilapidated condition. The respondents were given possession of the house as licencees with permission to raise permanent structure as the respondents were not having any house/shelter to live. The respondents raised construction of the house by spending an amount of Rs. 12 lacs. Kartar Kaur had also been seeing the respondents raising construction whenever she visited India. Licence of the respondents is stated to be irrevocable.

(3.) In the meanwhile, application was filed for respondents No. 4 and 5 through respondent No. 2 as their attorney for impleading them part}' under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Execution of the Will by Kartar Kaur was denied. It is stated that respondents No. 4 and 5 have also filed a civil suit to challenge the Will set up by the petitioner. The eviction petition is said to have been filed by the petitioner without the consent of the applicant-respondents No. 4 and 5. Since the decision of the application would definitely effect the rights of respondents No. 4 and 5, they made a prayer for being impleaded as necessary parties before the Rent Controller. The petitioner filed reply opposing the same. The learned Rent Controller vide impugned order had allowed the application impleading respondents No. 4 and 5 as parties.