JAGDISH CHANDER KAPOOR Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, notice of motion was issued by my learned brother D.S. Tewatia, J., on March 11, 1976.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Only two points have been raised before me. The first point is legal and deserves to be disposed of in the first place. It is submitted that the application for ejectment was filed by Nand Lal, Ram Labhaya and Babadur Chand, the three landlords. Bahadur Chand died during the pendency of the ejectment petition and an application was made for bringing on record his legal representatives. This application was allowed but later on the learned counsel for the other two Landlords, namely, Nand Lal and Ram Labhaya, made a statement that be did not want to bring on record the legal representatives of Babadur Chand deceased. The learned Rent Controller decided the ejectment petition against the landlords. Kam Labhaya, one of the landlords, did not join Nand Lal in appeal, nor were the legal representatives of Bahadur Chand deceased joined either as appellants or as proforma respondents. On the basis of a decision rendered in Civil Revision No. 628 of 1963, Hem Raj v. Moti Lal and others, decided by S. B. Capoor, J., on September 25, 1964, it is argued that if the order passed in an ejectment petition has become final qua the two landlords, the third landlord alone cannot file an appeal to challenge such an order. The decision rendered in this case is open to serious doubts and had it not been distinguishable, I would have considered the matter to be referred to a larger Bench.