The High Court, Chandigarh dismissed a revision petition by landlords challenging an order denying their impleadment in pending eviction proceedings, holding they must prove Sheela Devi is the tenant.
Revision petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Jalandhar.
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.
1
CR 5468/2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 5468/2013(O&M) Date of decision:12/09/2013
M/s Maa Vaishno Dhaba and others
.............Petitioners
v.
Bir Singh and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Vijay Lath,Advocate for the petitioners
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
The applicants/petitioners whose application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the pending eviction proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 has been dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2013 by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar are in revision assailing the same.
It is claimed that the landlords have filed eviction proceedings in respect of demised premises against one Sheela Devi. The said Sheela Devi in her written statement has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and by asserting that the tenant is M/s Maa Vaishno Dhaba and she (Sheela Devi) is one of the partners of the said firm.
The applicants who are partners in M/s Maa Vaishno Dhaba filed an application (P3) praying for their impleadment although it is conceded that there is no written rent agreement and the tenancy is oral.Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
CR 5468/2013(O&M)
2
The application was contested. The learned Rent Controller vide impugned order has dismissed the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that
the proceedings are at the initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the landlords. Thus, he prays for impleadment of the applicants/petitioners.
After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners/applicants this Court is of the view that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits. The landlords are dominus litus and in order to succeed they have to prove that Smt.Sheela Devi is tenant and not M/s Maa Vaishno Dhaba and if they fail to do so they would not succeed. Thus, the present petitioners/applicants cannot force the landlords to seek a relief against whom they do not wish to claim any relief.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Jalandhar.
12.09.2013. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in eviction proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act should be allowed in revision.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Maa Vaishno Dhaba and others
Bir Singh and others
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
