TILAK BAHADUR Vs. MADAN GOPAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P5) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, vide which an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the petitioner-Tilak Bahadur as party to the eviction petition stands dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that even if the petitioner is not a necessary party but he would be a proper party and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in case the present application is allowed. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jivatsingh Dhansinghani Vs. Padma Hemandas 2004 (1) RCR (Rent) 629 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Others 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 691. He thus contends that the impugned order cannot sustain.

(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents states that as per the application of the petitioner which has been filed for impleadment, he himself is admitting that he has vacated the portion which was in his possession in the year 2009 and shifted to the other portion of the house which is in possession of Padam Singh who is respondent in the ejectment petition. It has further been stated therein that the petitioner had gone to Nepal and he has only returned there on 28.04.2012 after the period of 7-8 months. He thus, contends that no evidence has been brought on record which would indicate that he was in possession of the premises in question. That apart, he contends that no tenancy agreement has been brought on record nor has it been stated as to how, when and to whom the rent was paid. A contention has also been raised that notice dated 26.2.1994 issued by the Municipal Council, Malerkotla (Annexure P6) where Tilak Bahadur-petitioner has been shown as a tenant, has been rectified. He thus contends that the impugned order is in accordance with law and do not call for any interference and in support of this contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh Vs. Dharam Pal and Others 1989 (1) RCR (Rent) 704 and Civil Revision No. 4900 of 2006 titled as Nazma Vs. Sunil Kumar and Others decided on 15.9.2006. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others 2010 AIR (SC) 3109 .