KISHORI LAL Vs. WAZIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 1219 of 1983 and 1234 of 1983 as both the cases arises out of the same judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 8th March, 1983.

(2.) THE landlord petitioner Kishori Lal filed the ejectment application on 12th April, 1978 against the tenant Wazir Chand, inter-alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from Ist April 1969 and personal necessity. 17th May 1978 was the first date of hearing. No arrears of rent were tendered on that day. However, on 3rd August, 1978, the parties produced a written compromise in which it was stated that the ejectment be ordered against the tenant because he failed to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. However, he may be allowed to vacate the premises up to 31st October, 1978, failing which the landlord-Kishori Lal will be entitled to eject him in execution. On that very day, Mohanlal moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., for being impleaded as a party as he claimed himself to be the owner of the property in dispute. Consequently, the said compromise could not be recorded as a dispute had arisen as regards the ownership of the demised premises. That application was contested on behalf of the landlord-Kishori Lal. However, the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 25th November, 1978 allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to file an amended application impleading Mohan Lal as respondent. Written statement was filed by Mohan Lal, respondent No. 2, whereas Wazir Chand respondent stated that he did not want to submit any fresh written statement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Mohan Lal could not be made a party in the ejectment proceedings. In case he claimed himself to be the owner of the demised premises he could get his title decided by way of a civil suit. In support of this contention, reference was made to Smt Balbir Kaur v. M/s Novex Dry Cleaners 1982 PLR 476. It was further contended that in view of the admission made by the tenant Wazir Chand vide compromise deed dated 3rd August, 1978 (Ex. A.3), he was liable to be ejected and the Rent Controller rightly passed the eviction order against him. On the other hand, learned counsel for Mohan Lal respondent contended that once Kishori Lal landlord filed the amended application, he could not be allowed to agitate that the order impleading Mohan Lal as a party was wrong or illegal. Thus, argued the learned counsel, though the question of title between Mohan Lal and Kishori Lal could not be decided in these proceedings but at the same time Kishori Lal was not entitled to an ejectment order because he has failed to prove himself to be the landlord qua Wazir Chand.