SWADESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MANOHAR LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for impleading him as party to the Rent Petition has been declined.

(2.) THE respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for eviction of the respondent herein. When the case was fixed for the evidence of the respondent herein, an application was moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code on behalf of Swadesh Kumar Gupta for impleading him as a party. It was submitted in the application that the demised premises i.e. Property Unit N. 521/Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda was under a registered mortgage with Smt. Parwati Devi wife of Chiranji Lal Gupta for a sum of Rs. 6000/-. It was mentioned that 2/5th share in the said mortgage had not been redeemed till today. Parawati Devi expired on 12.9.1985 and it was claimed that Swadesh Kumar Gupta had become the sole owner on the basis of Will dated 14.7.1985 executed by Parawati Devi in his favour to the extent of 2/5th share in the demised premises. It was further case that Manmohan Lal Gupta had filed a suit for declaration and possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/4th share and the petitioner had also filed a counter claim in the said suit and had sought interim injunction for the recovery of rent from Adarsh Kumar Bhandari by the respondent herein.

(3.) THE application was contested by the respondent herein and it was submitted that the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller were not governed by the Code and the learned Rent Controller was to decide the matter between the landlord and the tenant and not to decide about the ownership of the property. The case of the respondent herein was that Adarsh Kumar had admitted the respondent to be his landlord and the proceedings regarding the Probate of Will were pending in this Court. It was also claimed that the mortgage deed as alleged by the petitioner herein had already been redeemed at the time of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent. Other allegations were also denied.