Naresh Kumar Aggarwal vs Shri Gurmeet Singh Punia and Another

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the tenant to amend the written statement in order to incorporate the plea that on the date of the original owner two set of heirs claimed title to the property under two different wills.

Brigadier Joginder Singh filed an application for eviction against Gurdial Singh and the petitioner. In the eviction application, it was stated that respondent No. 2 bad sublet the premises to the petitioner. During the pendency of She eviction application, the applicant, namely, Brigadier Joginder Singh died. His son Gurmit Singh filed an application for imploding him as legal representative of the deceased on the basis of will dated October 18, 1970. The same was allowed The deceased also left behind two daughters, namely, Daljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur, Smt Daljit Kaur claimed title to the property under will dated January 1, 1988 executed by her father in her favour She has also filed a civil suit for a declaration to the effect that she was exclusive owner of the property in dispute under will dated January (sic), 1988, executed by her father, namely, Brigadier Jogindsr Singh The suit is still pending adjudication.

During the pendency of the eviction application, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the following plea :-

"That the petition is not maintainable because there is a dispute between the two legal heirs i.e. Gurmit Singh has set up a will dated 10-8-1979 in his favour and Sbrimati Daljit Kaur has set up another will dated 1-1 1988 in her favour, regarding the ownership of the House in question, only the civil court has jurisdiction and the present petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. Otherwise also Shrimati Daljit Kaar has not been impleaded as party. The petition is bad for non joinder of parties."

The Rent Controller declined the permission to amend the written statement principally on the ground that one of the legal heirs can prosecute the eviction application and also on the ground that the objection which is sought to be taken by the Rent Controller is not correct. It is not disputed that the legal heirs of the deceased have sought title to the property under two different wills. The son, namely, Gurmit Singh who has been impleaded as a party in the eviction application in place of the deceased claimed title to the dispute property on the basis of the will dated 18-10-1970 executed in his favour and Smt. Daljit Kaur, the daughter of the deceased has claimed title to the property on the basis of the will dated January 1, 1988 and she has already moved the Civil Court for a declaration to the effect that she was the sole owner of the property in dispute. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the Rent Controller to add Smt. Daljit Kaur as a necessary party to the eviction application and also to permit the tenant to raise the plea which he is seeking to raise by way of amendment. The Rent Controller has to adjudicate upon the plea after framing issues and affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in proof and disproof of their respective pleas. The learned Rent Controller could not express its opinion on the plea in the absence of the evidence brought on the record. The order under challenge cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The application for amendment of the written statement is accordingly ordered as prayed for The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 5-11-1990.