RAM PARKASH Vs. AMAR NATH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 13th August, 1984 whereby the application filed by Amar Nath under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading him as a party to the petition was allowed.

(2.) Ram Parkash Landlord purchased the shop in dispute from Karam Vir, the original owner, on 29th September, 1983. He filed the present ejectment application on 24th April, 1984 against his tenant Jaswant Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings one Amar Nath filed an application claiming himself to be the brother of Karam Vir and alleging that he was the owner of the premises which were purchased by him from the Central Government vide sale deed dated 18th June, 1954 and thus, the respondent Jaswant Singh was his tenant and Ram Parkash petitioner had no concern whatsoever with it. This application was contested on behalf of the landlord Ram Parkash. The learned Rent Controller found that though it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate over the ownership of the property the Rent Controller was bound to decide as to who was the landlord of the demised premises. It was remarked that since Amar Nath was disputing this and claiming himself to be the landlord it was desirable to adjudicate the controversy effectively and that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Amar Nath was a necessary party.

(3.) Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents inspite of service and issuance of actual date notice.