(1.) The present petition has been filed by the landlord who is aggrieved against the order dated 22.01.2016, whereby the Rent Controller, Kharar has allowed the application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC of respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) The reasoning given in the impugned order is that the said respondent-applicant were owners of the property which was mortgaged to the petitioner Satnam Singh vide mortgaged deed dated 20.04.1999. Since a separate suit had been filed seeking redemption and possession of the suit property, the applicants were necessary party in the case and they would suffer irreparable loss and, therefore, the case could not be decided effectively without their presence. Resultantly, the petitioner was directed to filed amended petition and respondents were directed to file reply to the amended petition.
(3.) The said order on the face of it is not sustainable. In the eviction petition which was filed on 04.09.2013 it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner had given the shop in question on rent in the year 2007 to respondent No. 3, namely, Lakhvir Singh and the rate of rent was Rs. 2,800/- per month. The eviction had been sought on various grounds including arrears of rent and that the shop was being used for the purpose other than it was leased out and there was a nuisance by the tenant.