VEENA SOOD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dtd. 27/5/2023, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner herein for being impleaded her as a party to the petition on the ground that she was a necessary party, stands dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that as the petitioner in the eviction proceedings did not intend to implead her as a party, therefore, he could not be forced to array her as a party, more so as the question of title qua the demised premises was not to be decided by the said Court.

(2.) When the case was taken up for consideration today, the Court was apprised that earlier also same issue came for consideration intra the parties before this Court relating to the same building and the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches were pleased to hold that though the petitioner was not a proper party for the purpose of the adjudication of the eviction proceedings and her application was rightly rejected, but it was made clear that any findings given by learned Rent Controller in the absence of the petitioner shall not in any manner affect/influence the decision of the Civil Suit which was to be decided on the basis of the evidence recorded in the same wherein there was a dispute intra the petitioner there and respondent No.1 herein with regard to title.

(3.) Therefore, these proceedings are also closed without interfering with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, but by observing that that any adjudication made by learned Rent Controller shall not affect the right of the petitioner as she is not a party in the said proceedings and further the same shall also not have any bearing in the Civil Suit pending intra the parties wherein their title has to be decided in terms of the pleadings and evidence on record.