M.K. MAHAJAN Vs. S.S. SODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE caveator / respondent has put in appearance, therefore, the purpose of the caveat petition is served and it stands disposed of. Heard and gone through the record.

(2.) THERE is a double storeyed building in Shimla town, which was initially owned by two brothers, named Kartar Singh and Jagtar Singh. In one portion of that building, on the ground floor, the revision-petitioner is admittedly a tenant. On the death of the above-named two brothers, the building was inherited by the legal heirs of the two brothers. Jasjit Singh Sodhi, one of the legal heirs of Jagtar Singh Sodhi (one of the two original owners) filed a petition, under Section 15 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, seeking eviction of the revision-petitioner, claiming that he was a 'specified landlord'. In that petition the revision-petitioner, inter alia, took the plea that after the death of the above-named two original owners, he had been paying rent to respondent S.S. Sodhi, one of the legal heirs of the other brother, namely Kartar Singh Sodhi. That petition, under Section 15 of the Act, was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Revision petition filed by said Jasjit Singh Sodhi was also dismissed. Then a review petition was filed by said Jasjit Singh Sodhi, wherein he, among other things, stated that the tenanted premises, in occupation of the revision-petitioner, had fallen to his share in a partition of the building, between the legal heirs of the original owners. That review petition was also dismissed.

(3.) REVISION -petitioner has filed an appeal, which is pending with the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla. A petition was filed for amendment of the reply by the revision-petitioner before the Appellate Authority, seeking to take the plea that in the earlier litigation Jasjit Singh Sodhi, one of the legal heirs of Jagtar Singh Sodhi, had stated in the review petition that the premises, in question, had fallen to his share in a partition and that said Jasjit Singh Sodhi, being not a co-petitioner in the present petition, it is evident that the respondents are misusing the provisions of law and the present petition is just a hoax, which is being played on the Court. The amendment, which is sought to be made, reads as follows:-