KRISHAN LAL Vs. TELU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of order dtd. 3/12/2015 (Annexure P-) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nabha, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC, for impleading Lal Chand son of Telu Ram, has been dismissed. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that respondent-Telu Ram, filed a petition under Sec. 13(4) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'Act') for ejectment of the present petitioner from the demised premises i.e. the shop in question. Telu Ram is claimed to be owner of the said shop. Petition filed by Telu Ram was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 30/1/2004. Appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala on 8/8/2005. Civil Revision No. 4699 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner challenging his eviction was dismissed by this Court on 11/8/2006. Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27/8/2007.

(2.) Petitioner-Krishan Lal, in execution proceedings handed over possession of the demised shop to the landlord on 7/9/2007. After about three and half years, the present petitioner filed an application under Sec. 13(4) of the Act seeking restoration of possession along with an application for appointment of local commissioner on the ground that the landlord did not start the business of clothing i.e. the ground on which eviction of the petitioner was ordered, but sold the shop to one Bihari Lal. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent-landlord while pleading that after taking possession of the premises, renovations and repairs were carried out by the landlord and the business of clothing under the name and style of M/s Telu Ram Silk Store was started. The Mahurat took place on 30/11/2007. Business was run by the respondent for about three years from the demised premises, but due to old age, weak eyesight etc., the same was closed thereafter. Issues in the matter were framed on 4/6/2012. The shop in question was gifted by Telu Ram to his son Lal Chand by a gift deed dtd. 29/5/2009. Application for impleading Lal Chand and necessary amendment in the petition was moved by the present petitioner while stating that the petitioner was not aware of the property being gifted to Lal Chand son of Telu Ram, till one of the witnesses i.e., Gaurav son of Lal Chand produces a notarized copy of the gift deed before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nabha on 15/7/2015. It was pleaded that Lal Chand was thus a necessary party. Learned Rent Controller, Nabha vide impugned order dtd. 3/12/2015, dismissed the application while holding that Lal Chand son of Telu Ram is not a necessary party to the main petition.

(3.) Aggrieved therefrom, present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of the property being gifted to Lal Chand was not in his knowledge. It is only when this fact came to light on 15/7/2015 that the application seeking necessary amendment and impleadment of Lal Chand was immediately moved on 16/11/2015 (Annexure P-2). Moreover, amendment sought does not in any manner prejudice the respondent. Lal Chand son of Telu Ram is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the controversy in hand as he is admittedly the owner in possession of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment in petition is merely clarificatory of the fact of transfer of the shop to Lal Chand. The petitioner, it is submitted merely seeks to add para 5-A to the existing petition which reads as under:-