Tejinder Singh Sandhu Devinder Singh Sandhu and Others v. Devinder Singh Sandhu

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Revision No. 4441 of 2009, wherein a Co- ordinate Bench disposed of the same, vide order dated 7.8.2009, by observing as under:- “...Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The Rent Controller under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 is not required to decide the title disputes between the parties. Similarly, a plaintiff/petitioner is the master of his own suit and the petitioner cannot thrust upon himself as a party to the same. This, however, does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent court for entrustment of the civil suit filed by the petitioner's brother to the same court where the eviction petition is also pending so that, keeping in view the nature of the lis, and if possible, both the matters can be heard and disposed of together. Disposed of. Dasti”. I am in agreement with the reasoning adopted by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 3 The tenant has already taken a stand that it is the petitioner who is the landlord. It is for the tenant to prove, by leading evidence, that respondent No.1, who had filed an eviction petition, is not a landlord. Therefore, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not maintainable. This Court has formulated a similar view in a judgment rendered in Shrimati Parmeshwari Devi etc. v. Shri Jiwan Lal and Others (Civil Revision No. 4048 of 2006 decided on 3.11.2008). It will be apposite here to reproduce extensively the relevant portion from the said case as facts of the case, enumerated therein, and ratio of law noticed, a conclusion will fortify dismissal of the present revision petition:- “...During the pendency of the petition,respondents who also claim interest to the estate of Karta Ram filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming themselves to be landlord. They relied upon various receipts issued by them to the tenant and stated that rent has been paid to them by the tenant, therefore, they are necessary party to be impleaded in the eviction petition filed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi etc. The Rent Controller noticed the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties. It also noticed that a criminal case is pending against Smt. Pareshwari Devi and others where compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Authorities, was Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 4 dispensed to her. It was claimed that she was not entitled to the compensation. Claim and counter claim regarding the title were advanced by the parties before Rent Controller and same were also noticed in the order. Finally, the Rent Controller concluded that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is not disputed and the petitioner to the eviction petition alleged that the respondent-tenant paid rent to him. Applicants to application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC have also alleged to have issued rent receipts. Therefore, it is necessary that they be also impleaded as necessary parties. This order has been challenged before me in a revision petition. Shri Bedi, appearing for the petitioners to the eviction petition has relied upon a judgment of this court rendered in Ram Parkash of Nakodar v. Amar Nath and others, 1985 H.R.R. 127 wherein it was held as under :- “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that Amar Nath could not be added as a party in these proceedings. In case he claims himself to be the owner of the shop in dispute he may seek his Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 5 remedy in a Civil Court and in case he claims himself to be the landlord of the demised premises, in that position also he may file a separate application for the ejectment of his tenant. In either of these situations, he could not be impleaded as a party to the present ejectment application filed by Ram Parkash. Consequently, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by Mr.Amar Nath under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, is dismissed with no order as to costs.” Counsel has further relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Kishori Lal of Moga v. Wazir Chand and others 1985 H.R.R. 67 and Subhash Chander v. Lala Baij Nath Aggarwal, 1993(2) R.C.R (Rent) 471. Mr.Bedi has contended that as to who is the owner of the property can be well settled by the parties by approaching the Civil Court. He has further stated that a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding adjudication of title, relying upon a case of Ram Parkash of Nakodar's case (supra). It has been canvassed that any body who claim himself to be owner and landlord to negate the claim of person Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 6 who has instituted the eviction petition, for deciding the issue of title and ownership ought to approach Civil Court and to establish his right as a landlord can file a separate ejectment petition. To counter these arguments advanced by Shri Bedi, Shri Palli appearing for the respondents has stated that once qua the property in ejectment petition tenant has appeared, it is to be determined as to who is the landlord of the tenant if there is a dispute to this effect. Shri Palli has stated that the test which applies for deciding application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is whether substitution or addition of the party is necessary for determination of the real matter of the dispute. He has stated that Courts have to make an attempt to conclusively decide the issue on which there is agitation between the parties. He has further stated that Courts have not to take into consideration whether plaintiff (party) agrees or objects to the addition of the party to the suit but whether presence of such party is required for full and complete adjudication of the suit. Therefore, Shri Palli submits that the presence of branch of Karta Ram is necessary as there is a dispute as to whether family of Sadhu Ram is landlord or family of Karta Ram is landlord. Rebutting the arguments advanced by Shri Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 7 Palli, Shri Bedi has stated that the Code of Civil Procedure is not fully applicable in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He has urged that the Rent Controller has a limited jurisdiction. He has to determine the relationship of landlord and the tenant in eviction proceedings filed. Rent Controller cannot hold a roving enquiry as to who is landlord qua the tenant whose eviction has been sought. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after giving my thoughtful consideration, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In a proceedings before the Rent Controller, it is for the person who is seeking eviction of the tenant to establish himself as a landlord. In case he fails to prove that he is the landlord, his eviction petition is liable to be dismissed and he will suffer to his own peril. If any other person as the respondents in the present case want to prove that they are landlord qua the tenant over the same property, they can institute a separate ejectment petition and in case such a course is adopted, then the Rent Controller can try both the ejectment petitions simultaneously but separately so that no judicial embarrassment is caused in parallel proceedings. Accordingly, the present revision petition is Civil Revision No. 3818 of 2010 8 accepted. Impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside and the application filed by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is dismissed”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in Jagmohan Lal Jain v. Sangeeta Jain and Another 2009(1) Recent Civil Reports 660, wherein it was held that where a specific stand has been taken by the tenant that another person is a landlord then he is to be impleaded as a party. I have considered the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is for the landlord, who has preferred the eviction petition, to prove relationship of landlord and tenant. It is not for the tenant to opt and decide as to who is the landlord. Taking totality of circumstances, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is dismissed. June 28, 2010 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge