CHANDER SEIN Vs. SHRIMATI JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Chander Sein, tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, dated October 11, 1977.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that Smt. Ajmer Kaur was the owner of the property and she leased it out to the petitioner. She moved an application under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenant before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. He accepted the application and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. During the pendency of the appeal, the site on which the property is constructed, was resumed by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The petitioner, in view of the site so resumed, moved an application before the Appellate Authority that the Estate Officer, Union Territory, may be impleaded as a party as Smt. Ajmer Kaur had been left with no interest. The application was opposed by Smt. Ajmer Kaur who pleaded that she had filed an appeal against the order of resumption and consequently the Estate Officer was not a necessary party. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the application vide the impugned order. The petitioner has come up in revision petition against the said order.

(3.) The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the Estate Officer is a necessary party for the decision of the appeal or not. It is not disputed that the property has been resumed by the Estate Officer. If it is so, then Smt. Ajmer Kaur is not left with the ownership rights in the property, as the property is vested in the Union of India. Consequently, Union of India becomes necessary party. It may be possible that the order of resumption may be amended in the appeal filed by Smt. Ajmer Kaur and she may again be vested with the ownership rights.