LAWS(P&H)-1985-3-86

KUNDAN LAL Vs. SMT. PRITAM KAUR AND ANR.

Decided On March 13, 1985
KUNDAN LAL Appellant
V/S
PRITAM KAUR AND ANR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant of the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent. On the first date of hearing, i.e., January 15, 1983, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and made the following statement :

(2.) The revision petition is wholly misconceived. The Appellate Authority rejected the application on the ground that the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent and thereby having suffered the ejectment order, no useful purpose could be served by impleading him as party to the appeal. The tender of arrears of rent by the counsel appointed by the alleged attorney was not valid when the tenant had categorically stated that he did not want to tender any rent. That apart, the tenant also stated in unequivocal terms that he had not appointed anybody as his attorney which was factually correct because the special power of attorney relied upon did not authorise Vijay Kumar to appear in the present proceedings and was executed to defend some earlier proceedings. No fault therefore can be found with the order rejecting the application. Moreover, the appeal filed by Vijay Kumar was still born being not competent. A partner with a tenant has no locus standi to be impleaded in the proceedings of ejectment against the tenant or to file any appeal against the ejectment order. There being thus no validly instituted appeal, the question of impleading the petitioner as party to the same could not arise. This petition consequently has no merit and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-. The tenant is however allowed to vacate the premises on or before April 15, 1985 provided he deposits the arrears of rent uptill that time by the end of this month in the Court of the Rent Controller.