HARBANS SINGH MATHARU Vs. S TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a proper party, if not a necessary party to the ejectment petition. A civil suit is pending adjudication, between the petitioner and respondent no.1 (landlord), with respect to ownership of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that any adjudication as to ownership of the demised premises, would necessarily affect the rights of the petitioner in a pending civil suit. Reliance for the above proposition is placed upon Jagdish Lal Sharma v. Municipal Committee and other, 1998 118 PunLR 825and Harbhajan Singh and others v. Malook Singh and another, 1999 122 PunLR 709.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.