Smt. Krishna and Another vs Smt. Shanti Devi and Another

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The petitioners make a grouse of the order of the Rent Controller, Sonepat, dated 26th August, 1989, whereby their prayer under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, has been declined.

Briefly, the back-drop of the case is that the demised premises belonged to one Shri Attam Parkash who died on 25th February, 1988. Subsequent thereto, respondent Smt, Shanti Devi filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, for the ejectment of Radha Krishan to whom the property in question had been let out by Shri Attam Parkash during his life time. During the course of these proceedings the petitioners claiming themselves to be the widow and daughter of deceased Attam Parkash made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that they are also the co- owners of the property in question and, therefore, were entitled to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The Rent Controller as already indicated, has declined this request on the ground that be was not to decide or determine the question of title between the parties. The limited claim that has to be decided by the Rent Controller is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties before him. Therefore, 1 find no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.