SUNITA GOYAL Vs. CHAMBA MAL BHAGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands directed by the petitioner against the orders recorded, on, 3.12.2016 by the learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla in case No. 166-6 of 16/14, whereby, it dismissed an application instituted there-before, under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC.

(2.) The demised premises is a commercial premises, comprising, of one shop approximately measuring 450 sq. feet, shop whereof exists on the ground floor of the building AND a godown/store, approximately carrying an alike area, godown whereof exists in the first floor, of, building No.48, situated at Ward No.13, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The initially inducted tenant therein, was, one Amar Nath, who, died intestate in the year 196 Consequently, upon his demise, prima facie his tenancy rights, upon, the demised premises devolved upon his legal heirs, one amongst whom is the applicant/petitioner herein, one Sunita Goyal. However, when the landlord instituted rent petition borne in Annexure P-2, in the year 2012, he omitted, to implead in the array of respondents/tenants, all the legal heirs, of, the initially inducted tenant, in the demised premises, named, one Amar Nath. The aforesaid eviction petition, was, filed on the ground of the demised premises being bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation, for, enabling him to establish his business therein. Subsequent to the institution of the rent petition, the applicant/petitioner herein, who admittedly, is the daughter of the initially inducted tenant, named one Amar Nath, filed an application before the learned Rent Controller, application whereof, was cast under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, wherein, she sought her impleadment, in the rent petition, as a co-respondent in the apposite array of respondents. However, her application was dismissed. Consequently, she is aggrieved by the dis-affirmative order pronounced by the learned Rent Controller, hence, is driven to institute the instant petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing, for, the respondent/landlord, has, made concerted endeavour, to validate the impugned pronouncement by contending that, on the tenant, impleaded as a sole respondent, in the rent petition, making liquidation, of, rent vis-a-vis the landlord, thereupon, his apposite attornments, being construable to be attornments, also on behalf of the applicant. He also proceeds to contend that even if the applicant, is, the legal heir of deceased Amar Nath, yet given the impleaded tenant, in the apposite rent petition, making the apposite attornment vis-a-vis the landlord qua the demised premises, for himself besides on her behalf, (i) hence begetting a further inference, of, the impleaded tenant, in the rent petition, also, representing the interests, of, the applicant herein, in the rent petition also any decree as may come to be pronounced upon the eviction petition and upon the tenant impleaded therein, being irresistible, rather it being executable even against the applicant/petitioner herein. Consequently, he contends that thereupon the impleadment of the applicant/petitioner herein, being, neither just nor essential, (i) nor hers being hence either a necessary or a proper party, in the rent petition, AND (II) that the dis-affirmative pronouncement recorded by the learned Rent Controller upon her application, warranting vindication. In making the aforesaid submission, he places reliance upon a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in a case titled as Ashok Chintaman Juker and others Vs. Kishore Pandurang Mantri and another, AIR 2001 SC 2251, the relevant paragraph No. 16 whereof, is reproduced hereinafter:-