LACHHMAN DASS Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this revision against the trial Court's order dated 29. 3. 1996, whereby his petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is declined.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the suit property was owned by Vidya Wati. After her death since 1978 tenant Sukhbir Singh is paying rent to Sham Lal respondent. Sham Lal filed a civil suit for partition against Lachhman Dass petitioner and his brother Radhey Sham which was dismissed on 4. 6. 1994 wherein it is held that Lachhman Dass and Radhey Sham are owners of the property left by their father on account of the will dated 12. 10. 1969. After dismissal of this civil suit respondent Sham Lal aggrieved by this decree, has filed an appeal which is still pending. Petitioner Lachhman Dass filed a rent petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh, wherein he claimed the rent from 1. 5. 1988 to 31. 12. 1988 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. As the tenant paid the entire rent with house tax, the petition was got dismissed. Petitioner Lachhman Dass has also filed another ejectment petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh wherein he has claimed rent from 1. 1. 1989 to 30. 04. 1993 which is still pending. Respondent Sham Lal has filed an ejectment petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh wherein he has claimed rental arrears from 1. 10. 1993 to 30. 09. 1994. During the pendency of this rent petition, petitioner filed an application under Order, 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading him as respondent therein alleging that he is real landlord qua the demise premises qua tenant Sukhbir Singh. Therefore, he is necessary party to the petition. It is also alleged that to decide the controversy finally between the parties and with a view not to drive him to another litigation, it is necessary that he should be impleaded as respondent in that rent petition case filed by Sham Lal against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh.

(3.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel, relying on Janki Devi and Ors. v. Tara Chand and Ors. , 1984 (2)R. L. R. 65, Ved Kumar v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhatti and Ors. , (1993-1)103 P. L. R. 531 and Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan v. Shammi Kumar, (1995-2)110 P. L. R. 651, contended that since Sham Lal as well as petitioner Lachhman Dass are claiming to be the landlords qua tenant Sukhbir Singh hence, the petitioner Lachhman Dass should be allowed to be impleaded in the rent petition which is filed by respondent Sham Lal against the respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh so that the matter in controversy may be conclusively decided between the parties. He also pointed out that earlier Sham Lal filed a civil suit for partition and possession of certain properties left by the father of petitioners Lachhman Dass, which was dismissed on 4. 6. 199 holding that the petitioner Lachhman Dass and his brother are owners of the said property on the basis of the Will dated 12. 10. 196? Thus, according to him by Civil Court's decree, petitioner Lachhman Dass and his brother are held to be the owners of the disputed property. Therefore, petitioner is a necessary party in the said rent petition.