SURINDER MOHAN Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the tenant is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller, dated 20.5.1994, and Appellate Authority, under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, dated 13.11.1998, whereby his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent has been ordered. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that as a matter of fact, not he alone, but he and his father Tarlok Chand, are joint tenants in the premises and that his father Tarlok Chand having not been joined as a co-tenant (co-respondent) with him in the eviction petition, the petition was bad, but the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority, have rejected his plea holding that the issue has become res judicata, in view of the finding returned by the Rent Controller, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Hon'ble High Court, in an earlier litigation, wherein, it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and respondent Amar Singh. Respondent Amar Singh, landlord had filed a petition in the year 1988, under Section 4 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, seeking fixation of fair rent alleging that the premises were let out to the present revision petitioner at the rate of Rs. 450/- per annum plus taxes in the year 1973, but the rent was on the lower side. Revision petitioner besides contesting the petition on merits, took the plea that the petition was bad for non-joinder of his father as party, because he was a co-tenant with him. A specific issue was framed "whether the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties" and it was numbered as issue No.3. The trial court returned the finding that the agreed rent was the just rent and no revision on the higher side was called for. After recording this finding, the Rent Controller observed that other issues including issue No. 3, pertaining to the plea of the tenant- revision petitioner that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. his father, a co-tenant with him, had become redundant. No specific finding was recorded whether the revision petitioner alone was a tenant or he and his father were joint tenants. That order was challenged by the landlord by filing an appeal, because the agreed rent had been held to be the just rent. That appeal was also dismissed without looking into the plea of the revision petitioner- tenant that the petition was bad for non-joinder of his father, who he alleged was a co-tenant with him. Revision petition was filed by the landlord in this court. That too was dismissed, but this court also did not touch the question whether the father of the revision petitioner was a co-tenant with him and whether the petition was bad for his non-joinder.

(2.) AFTER that the petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, was filed by the respondent against the present revision petitioner, seeking his ejectment from the premises on the ground that he had failed to pay rent for certain specific period.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority has also relied upon the judgement delivered in the earlier case by the Rent Controller, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the High Court.