Dismissed¶6

Davinder Singh v. Gagandeep Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025CR/1460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of Punjab Wakf Board refused in Section 13 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 ejectment petition; Article 227 revision dismissed; Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC application; khasra number dispute Khasra No.996 vs Khasra No.998; transfer deed dated 11.06.2019; substitution of Gagandeep Singh for Sukhpal Singh; ownership question cannot be decided in ejectment petition; landlord dominus litis; no relief against Wakf Board; Rent Controller Ludhiana order dated 14.11.2024; Alka Sarin; CR-1460-2025 (O&M); Davinder Singh tenant petitioner; Gagandeep Singh landlord respondent.

What did the court decide?

The question whether the property in dispute is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board or by the respondent-landlord cannot be gone into in an ejectment petition. ¶5-contd.

Davinder Singh Vs Gagandeep Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Punjab Wakf Board was a necessary party to the Section 13 ejectment petition such that dismissal of the impleadment application warranted interference under Article 227, given the petitioner's claim that the disputed property falls in Khasra No.998 (claimed Wakf Board ownership) rather than Khasra No.996 mentioned in the transfer deed.

¶3

Court's answer

The question whether the property in dispute is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board or by the respondent-landlord cannot be gone into in an ejectment petition.

¶5-contd.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner succeeds in proving that the property in dispute falls in Khasra No.998, the ejectment petition would in any case fail; hence there is no requirement for impleading the Punjab Wakf Board as a party.

¶5-contd.

Key takeaways

There is no requirement for impleading the Punjab Wakf Board as a party in the ejectment petition.ratio¶5-contd.
The respondent-landlord is dominus litis; since no relief is claimed against the Punjab Wakf Board, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Rent Controller.ratio¶5-contd.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR-1460-2025 (O&M) — Davinder Singh v. Gagandeep Singh (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Alka Sarin J., decided 09.09.2025): Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 14.11.2024 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing the tenant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of the Punjab Wakf Board in a Section 13 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ejectment petition. Held: the question whether the property belongs to the Punjab Wakf Board (Khasra No.998) or to the respondent-landlord (Khasra No.996 per transfer deed dated 11.06.2019) cannot be gone into in an ejectment petition; if the tenant proves the property falls in Khasra No.998 the ejectment petition would in any case fail; the landlord is dominus litis and no relief is claimed against the Board. Revision petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

129

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-1460-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2025

¶4

Davinder Singh ... Petitioner(s) Versus Gagandeep Singh ... Respondent(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶6

Present : Mr. DPS Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶8

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

¶9

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlordrespondent herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In reply, the tenant-petitioner herein denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and averred that the petition was not maintainable. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the Punjab Wakf Board though Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh and Incharge, Punjab Wakf Board, Branch Ludhiana as respondent Nos.2 and 3 wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of the petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Rent Act, an application was

¶10

Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.10 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

¶11

CR-1460-2025 (O&M)

¶12

¶13

filed for substituting the name of Gagandeep Singh in place of the respondent therein – Sukhpal Singh – on the basis of a transfer deed dated 11.06.2019. It was further stated in the application that in the ejectment petition, no khasra number was mentioned, however, in the transfer deed, khasra No.996 has been mentioned. It was further stated in the application that the property in dispute does not fall in Khasra No.996 and with the intention of committing a fraud, Khasra No.996 has been mentioned in the transfer deed. It was further stated that the property fell in Khasra No.998 which was in the ownership of Punjab Wakf Board and therefore, Punjab Wakf Board be impleaded as a party. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) the application has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that initially in the ejectment petition the khasra number was not mentioned. However, subsequently an application for substitution of the name of the respondent was filed on the basis of a transfer deed. In the transfer deed dated 11.06.2019 Khasra No.996 had been mentioned. It is the case of the petitioner that the disputed property falls in Khasra No.998 which is under the ownership of Punjab Wakf Board.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

In the present case the ejectment petition has been filed by the landlord-respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent. The said fact is disputed by the petitioner herein. It is also disputed that the property in question falls in Khasra No.996. Rather, the stand taken is that it falls in Khasra No.998. It is for the respondent herein to prove his case in accordance with law. The question whether the property is

¶17

Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.10 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

¶18

CR-1460-2025 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

owned by the Punjab Wakf Board or by the respondent herein cannot be gone into in an ejectment petition. In any case if the petitioner herein succeeds in proving his case that the property in dispute falls in Khasra No.998, the ejectment petition would accordingly fail. In view thereof, there is no requirement for impleading the Punjab Wakf Board as a party. In any event the respondent herein is always dominus litis . There is no relief claimed against the Punjab Wakf Board, hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller.

¶21

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶22

09.09.2025 Yogesh Sharma

¶23

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking^{Whether reportable: YES/NO}

¶24

Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.10 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

Davinder Singh v. Gagandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davinder Singh v. Gagandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Kumar and Ors. Vs Vinod Kumar

Nirmala Devi and Anr. Vs Sandeep Kumar @ Chela and Ors.

Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Nachhatro and Ors.

Arwinder Kaur and Others Vs Gurmail Kaur and Others

Suresh Goel Vs Neeraj Sharma and Ors.

Ved Parkash Gupta (Since Deceased) through His Lrs Vs Reena Modi and Others