SHARAD KAPOOR Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord assails order dated 18.5.2017 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Uma Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor for being impleaded as a party to the ejectment proceedings has been accepted. The petitioner-landlord Sharad Kapoor had filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of tenant namely Manjit Singh from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent which is being contested by respondent No.1 Manjit Singh. During the course of proceedings of the ejectment application, respondents No.2 and 3 namely Uma Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor i.e. the brother and mother of the petitioner, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party to the ejectment proceedings while stating therein that in fact the demised premises were owned by father of the present petitioner-Sharad Kapoor who had died intestate on 11.12.2013 but the petitioner, after his death fabricated a forged Will dated 27.2.2013 of his father and upon coming to know about the same, applicants i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 filed a civil suit against the present petitioner titled as "Uma Kapoor and others Vs. Sharad Kapoor and others" which is still pending. It is further stated in the application that present petitioner Sharad Kapoor is not the exclusive owner of the demised premises and since the applicants-respondents No.2 and 3 are also the co-owners, therefore, they be also impleaded as a party especially since the respondenttenant Manjit Singh has colluded with petitioner Sharad Kapoor.

(2.) Petitioner Sharad Kapoor filed reply to the aforesaid application denying all the material averments stated therein while asserting that his father late Sh. Madan Mohan had executed a Will in his favour. The learned Rent Controller after considering the matter regarding impleadment of the applicants accepted application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the lis pertaining to ejectment proceedings cannot be converted into a lis regarding ownership and that a person can be a landlord even without being an owner and that the learned Rent Controller by accepting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has virtually forced the petitionerlandlord to enter into lis with the said applicants when in fact a separate litigation on the basis of Will is already pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submission has pressed into recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Kanaklata Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and others, 2018 2 SCC 352.