CHANDRATAN CHANDAK Vs. DURGASHANKAR CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, seeking an injunction against the non-applicant/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed reply to the said application and thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC'), 1908, came to be filed by the respondent No.2, claiming himself to be the owner of the said premises in dispute. The petitioner filed reply to the said application while denying the facts stated therein and the learned Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dtd. 26/10/2023 (Annexure-3) and being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, has wrongly been allowed, as the newly added respondent was unable to establish the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. He further submits that the original tenant in his reply, has accepted the relationship of the landlord between the petitioner and himself and thus, there was no occasion for the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, to allow the application filed by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has not prayed for any relief against the respondent No.1 and he, being the Dominus Litis of the suit, cannot be compelled to implead respondent No.1 as a party respondent in the suit filed before the learned Tribunal. He also submits that the respondent No.1 has claimed himself to be the owner of the premises in dispute, however, in the petition filed by the petitioner, the title of the premises in dispute, cannot be decided.