(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated February 4, 1992 of the learned Rent Controller allowing application filed by Darshana Devi wife of Gian Chand respondent No. 1 and her two minor sons, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the petition.
(2.) GIAN Chand, respondent No. 1 purchased the property in question on August 10, 1987. He sold this property to Veena Rani, petitioner herein, on January 24,1990. Thereafter, Gian Chand took the property in dispute on rent from Veena Rani and executed a rent note dated August 13,1990 in her favour. Since Gian Chand did not pay rent, Veena Rani filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab (Urban Rent Restriction) Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of Gian Chand on the ground of non-payment of rent. Gian Chand was served but he did not put in appearance.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Rent Controller acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application seeking impleadment of Darshna Devi and her two minor sons and thereby permitting her to set up a title in the property in herself. Learned counsel further submitted that the Rent Controller has limited jurisdiction and the question of title could not be gone into by him. Admittedly, there is a relationship of landlady and tenant between Gian Chand and the petitioner and, therefore, the application could not have been allowed especially when her suit seeking declaration of title is already pending in the court of competent jurisdiction. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Anil Kumar v. Chaudhary Ram and others, (1994-1)106 PLR 507, Vijay Singh alias Vijay Ram of Patiala v. Dharam Pal. 1989 HRR 208, Kewal Krishan of Nabha v. Shiv Lal Gupta, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 635, Mangal Singh of Bhatinda v. Gurdarshan Singh alias Darshan Singh, 1990 HRR 586 respectively, and Shri Raj Kumar and Rajinder Singh v. Smt. Bimla Kumar, (1991-2) 100 P. L. R.