CHANDMAL Vs. TEJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs challenging the order dtd. 16/1/2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Case No. 67/2004 whereby, the application filed by the applicant respondent no. 1 Tejmal under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff chandmal (deceased) filed an application under Sec. 6 of Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara for eviction of premises and recovery of rent against the defendant kailash Chandra for bonafide necessity of the shop situated at Netaji Subhash Market, Bhupalganj, Bhilwara. The defendant submitted his reply to the application denying the necessity of premises and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, the applicant Tejmal filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC claiming that he was a necessary party in the suit as the defendant was his tenant and not of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff Chandmal was not the owner of the shop in question. In turn, the petitioner/plaintiffs submitted his reply to the application. It was submitted that the property in question used to be a joint property. After partition of the partnership firm, the said property came in the share of petitioner/plaintiffs by virtue of compromise executed between the applicant Tejmal and Chandmal. Hence, the deceased Chandmal became the owner of property in question. It was also submitted that the applicant was only collecting the rent and merely on the basis of collecting rent, he does not become the owner of the property.