SWARAJ SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH RANDHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has approached this Court against order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh declining his application for impleadment of Chandigarh Administration through the Chief Administrator and the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh as party respondent. The principal reason for declining the application is that the tenant-petitioner has admitted the landlord-respondents to be his landlords and it has been held that the tenant-petitioner is not entitled to challenge the title of his landlords. On the aforementioned basis, it has been found that the U.T. Administration is not a necessary or proper party. In the absence of U.T. Administration, the suit can be decided which is merely for recovery and ejectment of the tenant-petitioner.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that the landlord-respondents are dominus litis and are entitled to pursue the remedy against the tenant-petitioner. The lis between the landlord-respondents as well as U.T. Administration has got nothing to do with the prayer made by the landlord-respondents in their suit for ejectment of and recovery from the tenant-petitioner. The plea of the tenant-petitioner that the building has been resumed and landlord-respondents are no longer owner is absolutely misconceived because for the purposes of ejectment and payment of rent, the tenant-petitioner cannot deny the title of his owner. The aforementioned legal position is evident from Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Anar Devi (Smt.) v. Nathu Ram, 1994(2) RCR(Rent) 218 (SC) : 1994(4) SCC 250. In this regard observations of the Supreme Court deserve to be noticed which read as under :-