CHAND RANI Vs. DWARKA NATH BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Jullundur, dated February 12, 1974, rejecting the application of the present petitioner for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings for eviction started by Dwarka Nath Bakshi respondent against her son Narinder Kumar, respondent No. 2.

(2.) The petitioner made the application for being impleaded as a party to the ejectment proceedings, when orders had been passed to proceed ex-parte against Narinder Kumar respondent in the ejectment application but before any ex-parte evidence had been recorded. She has claimed that she and not her son is the tenant of the premises in dispute and that the landlord respondent intentionally filed the ejectment petition against her son as he was employed in the Border Security Force and was at that time posted at Manipur, and therefore the landlord-respondent intended to obtain an ex parte older in execution of which he would have tried to throw out the present petitioner who is his real tenant.

(3.) While rejecting the application of the petitioner Shri Amjad Ali Khan, Kent Controller, Jullundur, observed that the rent receipt on the basis of which the present petitioner was claiming to be the tenant, was not proved to have been given', by a duly authorised person and no receipt executed by Dwarka Nath Bakshi himself had been produced by her. The only other ground on which her application was rejected is that notice of eviction had been given to Narinder Kumar and had been received by him, but he had sent no reply thereto. These are not matters into which the Rent Controller was entitled to go at this stage. The application for eviction can succeed against Narinder Kumar respondent (subject to the ground of eviction being proved) only if he is proved to be the tenant and not otherwise. Any order of eviction against Narinder Kumar would not be binding on the present petitioner in spite of her being the mother of Narinder Kumar and living in the premises, as the landlord as chosen to contest her application for having the whole matter decided in the present proceedings, and the trial court has dismissed her application. Unless the landlord-respondent himself now prays for and gets the present petitioner impleaded as a respondent to the proceeding, he would not be entitled to eject the present petitioner in execution of any order of eviction which he may obtain against Narinder Kumar respondent. I do not however propose to interfere with the order of the trial court as the petitioner could at best be a proper party, but is certainly not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings. The order of the trial court does not suffer from any defect of jurisdiction.