DESH RAM Vs. U I T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Goyal submits that since no relief has been claimed against the owner Om Prakash, the lower court has committed a mistake of jurisdiction in permitting his application and adding him as a party.

(2.) MR . Bhandari's contention on the other hand is that Om Prakash being the owner is vitally interested that any encroachment made or any illegal construction made or any commission or omission made in respect of the property is sought to be removed by Urban Improvement Trust, should either be removed or not removed as the case may be.

(3.) WHETHER constructions made by tenant is lawful or unlawful is a matter were the owner is always vitally interested. In that view of the matter I am firmly of the view that in all matters where the Urban Improvement Trust or Development Authority trying to demolish some property or remove some encroachment alleged to have been made, by the tenant the land lord or the owner is a necessary party for the purposes of deciding rights between them. Even if it is assumed that the landlord is not a necessary party, he would always be a proper party.