JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order so passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla in Eviction Petition No. 82-2 of 15/2014, dated 16.5.2019, titled as Joginder Singh & another Versus Raj Kumar & others, vide which an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the applicants therein namely Kuldeep Kumar and Satish Kumar, has been allowed by the learned Court below.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order prima facie is perverse on account of inconsistency in the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners points out that two separate eviction petitions under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act have been preferred by the landlord against two sets of the tenants, but pertaining to the same building, on the ground that building is in a dilapidated condition. In both these petitions, applications were filed by a party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming to be co-owners of the premises, for being impleaded as a respondent. Whereas, application filed in Eviction Petition No. 82-2 of 15/2014, dated 16.5.2019, titled as Joginder Singh & another Versus Raj Kumar & others, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by a speaking order on 17.5.2018, on the same date, verbatim same application filed by the same applicants, has been allowed in the present case.