AJIT SINGH Vs. KHUSHWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) LANDLORD Khushwant Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Ajit Singh from the demised premises, which is a residential building, on the grounds that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from June 1980, till the institution of the ejectment application filed on 12th December, 1980, and that the demised premises were bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The tenant contested this ejectment application inter alia on the ground that the landlord had no locus standi to bring this application. It was pleaded that he was not the sole landlord of the demised premises. It was denied that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. During the pendency of the ejectment application the co-landlord Shrimati Upjinder Kaur moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, seeking that she be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. That application was contested on behalf of landlord Khushwant Singh. The learned Rent Controller passed a detailed order dated 5.3.1982 and dismissed the application moved by Shrimati Upjinder Kaur. Subsequently, the said co-landlady filed a separate application against the tenant, in which ejectment order was passed. After having obtained the said ejectment order she moved another application under order 1 Rule 10 for impleading her as a party, but this time again the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 9th August, 1983. Ultimately the Rent Controller found that Khushwant Singh alone had the locus standi to file the ejectment application and that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal filed by the tenant the learned Appellate Authority maintained the said findings and thus affirmed the eviction order. It may be mentioned here that before the Appellate Authority as well the said landlady Shrimati Upjinder Kaur again moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading her as a party. However, no separate order was passed dismissing the same but the same was disposed of along with the appeal. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) IT is no more disputed that Shrimati Upjinder Kaur is also the co-landlord qua the demised premises. She is the wife of the son of the tenant and is thus virtually in occupation of the demised premises. According to the learned counsel for the landlord respondent, she admitted that the demised premises had fallen to the share of Khushwant Singh in partition and in any case the tenant admitted that he was the tenant under Khushwant Singh, and therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Not only that, even vide order dated 25th March, 1983 (copy Exhibit RW 4/C) eviction order was passed against the tenant at the instance of the said landlady Smt. Upjinder Kaur. That being so, the tenant was liable to be ejected in any case. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, Khushwant Singh alone has the locus standi to file this application and the application filed by Shrimati Upjinder Kaur was collusive and was, therefore, of no consequence.