This revision petition challenges the Rent Controller's refusal to implead the wife of a missing tenant in an eviction proceeding. The court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to permit the wife to defend the petition.
The wife of the tenant is ordered to be impleaded as a respondent to the eviction petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009
Date of Decision: 17.8.2010
Suman Bala
…Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Vohra and Another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The respondent/landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. During the pendency thereof, wife of the tenant has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that her husband Narinder Kumar had been missing for the last ten years, therefore, she be permitted to defend the eviction petition.
The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, took a very hyper technical view and stated that since the Civil Court has not passed a decree that husband of the applicant was unheard for the last ten years, therefore, the application for her impleadment as a respondent to the eviction
Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2009
2
petition cannot be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that he is interested in contesting the eviction petition on merits and will have no objection in case the wife of tenant is permitted to defend the eviction petition.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present revision petition is accepted and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the wife of the tenant, is allowed. She is ordered to be impleaded as a respondent to the eviction petition.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
August 17, 2010 “ DK ”
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife of a tenant who is missing can be impleaded as a respondent to an eviction petition filed by the landlord.
Whether the Rent Controller's refusal to allow the tenant's wife to defend the eviction petition is legally sustainable without a prior decree declaring the marriage deceased.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suman Bala
Sanjay Vohra
Another
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
