JASWINDER SINGH Vs. LAKHBIR SINGH WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by Jaswinder Singh and another (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 27.8.1994. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code").

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 Lakhbir Singh has filed a petition for eviction against Pritam Singh, respondent No. 2, in the revision petition. During the pendency of that eviction petition, petitioners preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for them to be arrayed as a party. It was asserted that the property in dispute was originally owned by Gurbachan Singh s/o Chanda Singh. Pritam Singh and Manmohan Singh were his tenants in two different portions. After the death of Gurbachan Singh, his heirs Lakhbir Singh, Balbir Singh and Kartar Kaur became the owners of the said property. Lakhbir Singh filed ejectment petition. An order of eviction was passed against Manmohan Singh. He took possession of that portion. Sometime back, a family partition, took place amongst Lakhbir Singh, Balbir Singh and Smt. Kartar Kaur. Smt. Kartar Kaur relinquished her 1/3rd share in favour of her two sons, namely, Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh. In this process, Balbir Singh and Lakbir Singh became owners of the property to the extent of 1/2 share. Lakbir Singh was already in exclusive possession of 1/2 of the inherited property. Balbir Singh sold his 1/2 share to the petitioners. In the sale deed, it was mentioned that Pritam Singh tenant was in occupation of the property. In this process, it was asserted that inter se Lakhbir Singh and Pritam Singh the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end. Since valuable rights of the petitioners are involved, they prayed that they should be arrayed as a party. In fact, it was contended that the eviction petition had become infructuous.

(3.) In the reply filed, respondent No. 1 contested the application. It was asserted that the application had been filed at the instance of Pritam Singh who is the father of the petitioners. It was admitted that Gurbachan Singh was the owner of the property and that on his death, his two sons, namely Balbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh inherited the property. It was denied that there was any oral family partition as alleged by the petitioners. It was also denied that Kartar Kaur had relinquished her share. It was denied that the petitioners in any case were the necessary party.