JAGMOHAN LAL JAIN Vs. SANGEETA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as a petitioner in the rent petition filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Sangeeta Jain.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of respondent No. 2 on account of non-payment of rent. The petition is contested by respondent No. 2 and a specific stand has been taken that it is in fact the petitioner who is owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. The application filed by the petitioner was contested by respondent No. 1 on the plea that a person who seeks to be impleaded claiming to be owner, cannot be allowed to be impleaded as he has a remedy to file a separate suit for declaration of title or file independent petition under Section 13 of Rent Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being owner and landlord of the property in dispute is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that he has to be treated as a necessary party to the proceedings pending as the petition filed by respondent No. 1 is likely to fail in absence of petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Khushwant Singh, 1987(1) RCR(Rent) 444 (P&H).