ASHA Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition filed under Section 24(5) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 20.8.2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller (8), Shimla, HP, whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. petition against the proforma respondent Shri Surinder Mohan on two following grounds i.e.

(3.) Pleadings on record further suggest that aforesaid rent petition has been preferred by respondents No. 1 and 2 - (petitioners therein) in the court of Rent Controller Shimla. Further perusal of the material available on record suggests that late Shri Trilok Chand, Proprietor of M/s Bhagat & Sons was the original tenant in the demised premises and after his death tenancy was inherited by his son Shri Surinder Mohan, who is Proforma respondent. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, present petitioner being legal representative of late Shri Trilok Chand, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment as party respondent in the main petition. Application filed for impleadment as party respondent in the rent revision is annexed with the present petition. Petitioner in her application stated that late Shri Trilok Chand, was the original tenant of the demised premises and after his death i.e. in the year 2006, all the legal representatives of Shri Trilok Chand and Shri Devi Chand at the time of death, were ordinarily doing business in the said premises and as such they all were required to be impleaded as party respondents in the rent petition filed by the respondents. Applicant claimed herself to be one of the LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand, as she has inherited the tenancy rights in the same. She contended in her application for impleadment that other LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand and Devi Chand are also necessary party, without impleading them as party, no effective order can be passed in the present petition. It is submitted that since the tenancy of late Shri Devi Chand and Trilok Chand was commercial, after their demise, the tenancy rights have been devolved upon the legal representatives. It is also alleged that respondents No. 1 and 2 (petitioners therein) were well aware of the inheritance of tenancy by the legal representatives but intentionally, they did not implead them as a party respondent in the case. It is a specific case of the petitioner that after the death of her father, she has also inherited the tenancy rights as a tenant in the said shop in her own right and as such she is required to be impleaded as a party respondent in the present case. Without impleading her as party, no effective orders, if any, can be passed or executed under the Rent Control Act. In Para -6 of the application, there is averment that applicant was not aware of the pendency of the eviction petition, which she only came to know recently when she visited her relatives in Shimla in the last week of June, 2015. Lastly, she prayed that in the interest of justice, she may also be impleaded as party respondent being daughter of late Shri Trilok Chand, who was also original tenant in the demised premises. Respondents by way of reply refuted all the averments contained in the application. Respondents disputed the claim of the applicant -petitioner that being daughter of Shri Trilok Chand, she has inherited the tenancy rights qua the shop in question along with other legal representatives and she is necessary party to the proceedings. Respondents by way of reply refuted the claim of the applicant in toto. In reply it is also stated that application has been filed at the instance of the respondent namely Surinder Mohan -prorforma respondent, solely with a view to delay the proceedings. Moreover, petitioner being the dominus -litis of the case cannot be compelled to litigate against the particular person(s) and it is his choice against whom he wants to institute proceedings, if any. Respondents have also stated that if it is assumed that there are other LRs of late Shri Trilok Chand, she was not required to be impleaded as necessary party to the petition. It is specifically denied that all the alleged LRs were ordinarily doing business in the premises at the time of his death. It is also denied that no one else including the petitioner -applicant except the present respondents inherited the tenancy of the premises. Averment with regard to carrying on business along with Shri Trilok Chand in the premises at the time of the death later was also denied vehemently. Keeping in view the aforesaid pleadings on record, the learned Rent Controller, Shimla vide order dated 20.8.2015 held that petitioner -applicant is neither necessary nor proper party to the Rent petition in question and accordingly dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, present petitioner filed this revision petition.