OM PARKASH VERMA Vs. AMAR NATH BEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondent had raised this objection on the last date of hearing that revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller. In view of the two judgments of our own High Court reported as Boota Singh and others v. Roshan Lal and others, 1971 AIR(P&H) 269, and Guranditta Ram v. Murari Lal and another, 1974 76 PunLR 579, the objection has been withdrawn by the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Om Parkash against whom an eviction application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is at present pending before the Rent Controller, Kapurthala, has filed a revision against an order dated February 16, 1978, whereby the Controller dismissed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil procedure Code, not enabling him to implead the Municipal Committee as a party.

(3.) There is some land of Municipal Committee in respect of which some rights had been acquired by Amar Nath who after raising some temporary construction on that land leased it out to the petitioner. Amar Nath who is respondent in this revision petition failed to execute some required documents. It is being contended by the petitioner that the lease in favour of the respondent granted by the Municipal Committee came to an end on May 31, 1973. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the termination of the lease in favour of the respondent he is at present only a licensee of the Municipal Committee. It appears that the petitioner started paying the rent directly to the Municipal Committee and denied that he was a tenant under the respondent who claimed himself to be the landlord. There had been an order of eviction which had previously been passed by the Controller on December 19, 1975. The Appellate Authority at the request of the petitioner remanded the case to the Controller for the determination of the rights of the Municipal Committee in the rented premises.