GULSHAN SEHGAL Vs. ASOOBA SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for impleadment of a third party claiming to be the owner of the property in a rent control petition was dismissed on the ground that the Rent Controller was not expected to adjudicate on title. The revision petition is directed against the order of such dismissal.

(2.) THERE can be no controversy that normally in a rent control proceeding, there could be no adjudication regarding title to the property of the landlord. The term 'landlord' itself is defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as a person "for the time being entitled to receive rent". In such circumstance, the presence of a person who sets up title in a third party would be wholly irrelevant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for both sides have cited decisions that run contrary to each other. One line of authorities reported in Smt. Krishna and Anr. v. and Talib Hussain v. Peer Azhar Hussain and Ors., 1998(2) C.C.C. 630 lay down that issue of title is irrelevant in a rent control proceeding and a third party cannot seek for impleadment on the basis of title. However, the judgment Vidya Sagar v. Kesho Kumar and Anr., 1979(2) R.C.R. 612, lays down that a third party claiming to be owner of the property could be impleaded as a party and it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.