HARMOHAN SINGH Vs. RAJWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed challenging order dtd. 18/12/2024 whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading the other co-sharers of the property as necessary party has been dismissed.

(2.) The respondent-landlord herein filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to vacate shop Nos.4 and 5 on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as her bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenants herein appeared and filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC wherein they took a stand that the respondent-landlord herein was not the owner of the property and that the property had been sold to petitioner No.2 herein by way of an oral agreement and a civil suit is pending in this regard. It was further stated in the application that during the pendency of the ejectment petition it had come to the knowledge of the petitioners that there are other co-sharers and their names have been duly mentioned in the record of the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the co-sharers are necessary party as reflected in the M.C. record, however, they have not been impleaded as a party and that since petitioner No.2 is claiming to be the owner of the suit property, the impleadment of the said co-owners would be necessary.

(3.) Heard.