RAJINDER Vs. TARSEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, purporting to be one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as "the Code") has been directed against the order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nalagarh, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent No.l (hereafter referred to as R -1) has filed an application for eviction of respondent No.2 (hereafter referred to as "R -2") under Section 14(2)(ii)(a)(v) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") on the grounds that R -2 who was inducted as a tenant on 22.11.1986 in respect of the shop on KhasraNo.1070, Khewant/Khatauni Nos. 182/232 min, measuring 29.40 Square Meters, situate in Up Mohal, Naya Nalagarh, on payment of rent, has ceased to occupy the said premises for the last more than two years continuously and more particularly since 1.1.1997 till 31.12.1998. R -2, in his reply, has admitted the non occupation of the shop in question as alleged in the application, and it has been averred that he is an old man and is living in Pinjore. It has further been averred that his sons are having their business in Nalagarh and Baddi where they are running karyana shops and that he has not sublet the demised premises to anyone including his sons and if anybody has occupied the shop, he may be an encroacher and possession may be unauthorised and illegal. The evidence and final arguments in the rent petition had already been concluded but when it was fixed for orders, the petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code before the Rent Controller praying that they be added as parties - respondents in the petition on the ground that they possess right and title in the premises in dispute, as joint family business of Karyana was being carried out in the demised premises and they are members of the said Hindu undivided joint family and are, therefore, necessary parties in order to decide the controversy in the petition. The application was resisted by R -l on the ground that the petitioners have got no right, title and interest in the demised premises and are, therefore our necessary parties for any relief has been claimed against them. The learned Rent Controller dismissed application of the petitioners by the impugned order. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.