RAJESH KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla, in case No. 61-2 of 2017/12, titled as Sh. Raj Kumar Mehra v. Sh. Surinder Mohan, vide which, an application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a respondent in the rent petition, stands dismissed by the learned Court below.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- A rent petition filed by present respondents No. 1 and 2/landlord against present proforma respondents No. 3 is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla. A copy of the eviction petition filed under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) is appended with the present petition as Annexure A-4. A perusal of the same demonstrates that demised premises are non-residential, which are being used as Tailoring shop and the landlord has filed the eviction petition inter alia on the ground that premises were bonafidely required by the landlord for expansion of their present business and also on account of arrears of rent.

(3.) Eviction petition has been filed in the year 2012. In these proceedings, an application was filed by the present petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for being impleaded as a respondent inter alia on the ground that the petitioner/applicant was one of the sons of the original tenant and despite the landlord knowing fully well that the applicant was one of the legal heirs of late Shri Trilok Chand and had inherited the tenancy rights, the landlord deliberately did not array him as party respondent in the eviction petition. It was mentioned in the application that the applicant had acquired vested right in the said shop upon inheritance as one of the joint tenants and there appeared to be a collusion between the landlord and the sole respondent. On these grounds, it was pleaded that applicant was a necessary party in the eviction petition. It was mentioned in the application that the applicant came to know of the pendency of the aforesaid eviction petition recently when he in the absence of sole respondent searched the shop for some relevant papers of the business and came to know that aforesaid case was pending in the Court. Thereafter applicant enquired about the stage of the eviction petition but the sole respondent in the eviction petition did not come forward with true and accurate facts and gave evasive replies. Thereafter the applicant made inquiries at his personal level and found that the applicant was not arrayed as respondent in the aforesaid eviction petition. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for his impleadment as a party respondent in the eviction proceedings.