MAHESH KUMAR Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 24.10.2013 of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner herein for impleading him as party respondent in the matter, stands rejected. The facts relevant are that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a petition for recovery of arrear of rent and eviction against the respondent No. 5 in respect of the disputed premises, a shop. The disputed premises was owned by late Shri Ramchandra and after his death, his son Suresh Chandra was collecting the rent. It was averred that after death of Ramchandra, an oral partition took place amongst the legal heirs and the shop in question fell in the share of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner, the brother of respondent No. 1, son of late Shri Ramchandra, made an application for impleading him as party to the proceedings stating that no oral partition as alleged had taken place and as a matter of fact, a suit of partition preferred by him in respect of the properties owned by late Shri Ramchandra Soianki is pending consideration before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It was submitted that the petitioner herein being a Co -sharer in the disputed premises is necessary party to the proceedings. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned holding that in the proceedings under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the question of title over the property is not required to be gone into and the landlord even if he is not owner of the property can maintain the petition for eviction against the tenant. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner stands rejected by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred the petition claiming themselves to be landlord on the strength of the oral partition amongst the Co -sharers which has never taken place. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit for partition in respect of joint properties including the premises in question, which is pending consideration before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, in the eviction petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 claiming themselves to be exclusive owner of the disputed premises, the petitioner is necessary party. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner is not impleaded as party to the proceedings, his rights are likely to be adversely affected. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that a partition suit preferred, by the petitioner regarding the property in question is pending decision, it is just and proper that the petitioner is impleaded as party to the proceedings. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Hari Kisha Modi v. Smt. Santosh & Ors.,, 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 581.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.