Jagmohan Lal Jain vs Sangeeta Jain and Another

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as a petitioner in the rent petition filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Sangeeta Jain.

Respondent No. 1, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of respondent No. 2 on account of non-payment of rent. The petition is contested by respondent No. 2 and a specific stand has been taken that it is in fact the petitioner who is owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. The application filed by the petitioner was contested by respondent No. 1 on the plea that a person who seeks to be impleaded claiming to be owner, cannot be allowed to be impleaded as he has a remedy to file a separate suit for declaration of title or file independent petition u/s 13 of Rent Act.

The plea raised by respondent No. 1 was accepted and the application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being owner and landlord of the property in dispute is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that he has to be treated as a necessary party to the proceedings pending as the petition filed by respondent No. 1 is likely to fail in absence of petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Khushwant Singh (1987)91 P.L.R. 318.

The contention is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 on the plea that third party who claims to be owner of the property cannot be impleaded as a party in a petition filed u/s 13 of the Rent Act. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamla Devi and Others Vs. Surinder Kumar and Others, .

On considering the matter, I find that specific stand has been taken by the tenant in reply to the application moved by respondent No. 1 that it is the petitioner who is owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The petitioner being owner, is landlord of the premise in dispute. Judgment in the case of Kamla Devi and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondent would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no dispute of ownership.

Respondent No. 1 claims that she has become landlord in view of the fact that previously her husband used to collect rent from the tenant. Once, a specific stand has been taken by the tenant that petitioner is owner and landlord of the premises in dispute, then the petitioner becomes necessary and proper party in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Khushwant Singh (supra). The petition filed by respondent No. 1 cannot proceed against the tenant if the owner and landlord is not impleaded as a party.

Consequently, this revision is allowed. As the petitioner is necessary and proper party to the application, he is allowed to be impleaded as co-petitioner with respondent No. 1.