RANVIR KUTHIALA Vs. DEVI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the landlords. They are aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.1998 of the learned Appellate Authority setting aside the order dated 10.1.1995 of the learned Rent Controller and holding respondent No. 1 Devi Dass to be a tenant under the landlords in respect of the tenanted premises comprising of one servant quarter of the building known as Franklin Cottage, Shimla.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case giving rise to the present petition may be thus stated. The landlords on 18.11.1989 filed a petition, being petition No. 8/2 of 1991/89 before the learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Rent Act) for the ejectment of respondent No. 2 Messrs. Hakim Mal Tani Mal on the ground of non -payment of rent. It was pleaded that the tenanted premises were let out to respondent No.2 on payment of rent of Rs. 15 per month for residential purposes. In para 19 of the petition it was averred as under: - That the respondent was appointed as an agent to look after the properties of the petitioners and their predecessor -in -interest and by reasons of their being in employment of the petitioners, the premises in question were given to the respondent for use as a residence."

(3.) It was further pleaded that respondent No. 2 had failed to pay the rent since 1.1.1985. Respondent No. 1 Devi Dass, who was not initially a party to the eviction petition, approached the learned Rent Controller under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a party. It was claimed that in fact he is in possession of the tenanted premises as a tenant under the landlords. Such application, with the consent of the landlords and responded No. 2 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 28.11.1990 and respondent No. 1 Devi Dass came to be impleaded as a respondent.