Disposed¶17

Kamla Thakur and Ors. v. Sanjay Bagla and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2026CR/3657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of heirs/successors of tenant in eviction proceedings; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application; Article 227 revision; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Rent Controller Amritsar; succession to tenancy rights of deceased tenant; class heir of tenant; co-tenant alive and contesting; widow of Prithvi impleaded as respondent No. 2; Kamla Thakur v. Sanjay Bagla; CR-3657-2022; decision dated 27.04.2026; expedite eviction proceedings within 1 year.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; impugned order dated 27.07.2022 modified to the extent that Smt. Kamla Thakur (widow of Prithvi) is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition; Rent Controller, Amritsar requested to expedite and conclude the eviction proceedings preferably within 1 year; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶17

Kamla Thakur and Ors. Vs Sanjay Bagla and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant No.1 Smt. Kamla Thakur, widow of Prithvi and class heir of Bhola Ram (son of Sant Ram), the admitted tenant in the demised shop, ought to be impleaded as a respondent in the pending eviction petition. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Applicant No.1 Smt. Kamla Thakur, being the widow of Prithvi and class heir of BholaRam son of Sant Ram, the admittedly tenant in the demised shop, needed to be impleaded as a respondent, having succeeded to the rights of the tenant, particularly as her impleadment application was filed at the very initial stage of the eviction proceedings.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Applicants Nipun Thakur and Palak Thakur, stated to be the son and daughter of co-tenant Arun Kumar s/o Prithvi, have no right to impleadment, since Arun Kumar is admittedly alive and is himself contesting the eviction petition.

¶16

Key takeaways

The revision petition is disposed of and the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller is modified to the extent that Smt. Kamla Thakur widow of Prithvi is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition.ratio¶17
Since more than 5 years had elapsed since the eviction petition was filed in September, 2020, the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar is requested to expedite the proceedings and conclude the eviction petition at the earliest, preferably within 1 year.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.07.2022 of the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, declining the petitioners' impleadment as respondents (application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) in a pending eviction petition preferred by respondent No.1-landlord against respondent No.2. Held: applicant No.1 Smt. Kamla Thakur, widow of Prithvi and class heir of Bhola Ram son of Sant Ram, the admittedly tenant in the demised shop, succeeded to the rights of the tenant and was therefore ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition, her application having been filed at the very initial stage; however, applicants Nipun Thakur and Palak Thakur, son and daughter of living co-tenant Arun Kumar, were held to have no right of impleadment since Arun Kumar is admittedly alive and contesting the petition. Petition disposed of; noting that the eviction petition was filed in September, 2020 and over 5 years had elapsed, the Rent Controller, Amritsar was requested to expedite and conclude the proceedings preferably within 1 year.

¶1

147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-3657-2022 Date of Decision: April 27, 2026

¶3

KAMLA THAKUR AND ORS. ......Petitioners

¶4

Versus SANJAY BAGLA AND ANR. ......Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶6

Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate w ith Mr. Mridul Sharma, Advocate fo r respondent No.1. ****

¶8

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

By w ay of present revision petition filed under Article 227 o f the Constituti o n of India, challenge has been laid to order date d 27.07.2022 pa s sed by the learned Rent Co n troller, Amritsar whereby, a n application file d under Order 1 Rule 10 C PC by the petitioners wit h prayer for see k ing impleadment as respon d ents in the eviction petitio n preferred at th e instance of respondent No.1-landlord was declined. 2. In a pending eviction petition p referred at the instance o f respondent N o .1, with respect to the d e mised property as agains t respondent No . 2, an application under Ord e r 1 Rule 10 CPC came to b e filed at the in s tance of petitioners for seeking their impleadment a s respondents. T he prayer made in the application was opposed b y respondent N o .1 before the learned R ent Controller. Vide orde r dated27.07.20 2 2, the prayer made by the petitioners for thei r impleadment a s respondents in the pe n ding eviction petition wa s declined.

¶10

I h a ve heard learned counse l for the parties and gon e through the pa p er-book.

¶11

In t h e given facts and circumsta n ces wherein, applicant No.1 namely Smt. K amla Thakur happened to b e widow of Prithvi and thu s was classhe i r of Bhola Ram son of San t Ram who was admittedly a tenant in the d e mised shop needs to be imp l eaded as respondent having

¶12

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.05.01 10:34 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶13

CR-3657-2022

¶14

-2-

¶15

succeeded the rights of the tenant particularly, when the application for impleadment was filed at her instance at the very initial stage in the eviction proceedings.

¶16

However, in the humble opinion of this Court, the other two applicants namely Nipun Thakur and Palak Thakur who are stated to be son and daughter of co-tenant namely, Arun Kumar s/o Prithvi respectively have no right as Arun Kumar is admittedly alive and is contesting the petition.

¶17

In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller is modified to the extent that applicant No.1 namely Smt. Kamla Thakur widow of Prithvi is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition. However, considering the fact that the eviction petition was filed in September, 2020 and more than 5 years have elapsed, learned Rent Controller, Amritsar is requested to expedite the proceedings of eviction petition and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within 1 year from today.

¶18

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶19

27.04.2026

¶20

Tejwinder

¶21

(HARK J	ESH MANUJA) UDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶22

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.05.01 10:34 I agree to specified portions of this document

Kamla Thakur and Ors. v. Sanjay Bagla and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Thakur and Ors. v. Sanjay Bagla and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Lakhwinder Kaur and Others

Sirsa Distt. Employees Coop. Vs the Sirsa Sub Divisional Employees

Satya Narain Vs State of Punjab

Bhuraram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran Vs Hazura Singh and Others

Sarabjit Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh and Others