Delhi High Court
Gurpreet Singh & Ors vs Smt Munni Devi on 22 February, 2011
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 22, 2011
+ CM No. 16191/2010 in RC.REV. 101/2009
GURPREET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Amarjit Sahni, Adv.
versus
SMT MUNNI DEVI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. M.G. Dhingra, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
CM No. 16191/2010
1. Present application is filed by the petitioners/tenants under
Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Mrs.
Harpal Singh, wife of late Sh. Harpal Singh, as respondent no.2 in
the aforesaid revision petition.
2. It is stated that the respondent herein had filed an eviction
petition against the petitioners including Mrs.Harpal Singh before
the Ld.Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under section 14-D read with
section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of tenanted
premises i.e shop no.3 in property no.F-14/38, Model Town-II Delhi-
110009. It is stated that as per eviction petition, the tenancy was
earlier in the name of Sh. Harpal Singh and after his death, his
children i.e. the petitioners and their mother i.e. wife of Sh. Harpal
Singh became the tenants. The petitioner no.1 had filed leave to
defend application on his behalf as well as for petitioner nos.2 & 3
as their attorney. Mrs. Harpal Singh did not file any application for
leave to defend. The application of leave to defend of the aforesaid
three petitioners was rejected by the learned Addl. Rent
Controller/N.W./Rohini/Delhi and an eviction order dated 5.9.2009
was passed against all the petitioners including Mrs. Harpal Singh.
The aforesaid eviction order has been challenged by the
present petitioners before this court by filing a R.C.Revision No.
101/2009 wherein Mrs. Harpal Singh has not been made a party by
the petitioners under the impression that she did not appear before
the learned ARC and did not contest the eviction petition filed by
the respondent herein as such was not required to be made a party.
During the pendency of the present petition, respondent has
moved an application before this court i.e. CM No. 14458/2010
wherein she has prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition on the
ground that Mrs. Harpal Singh was a necessary party to the present
petition and as petitioners have not made her a party as such
revision petition was liable to be dismissed. To avoid the technical
objection and for a just decision of the case, it is prayed that Mrs.
Harpal Singh may be impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the present
petition as a proforma party.
3. Respondent has opposed the application by contending that
Mrs. Harpal Singh was a party before the trial court and she did not
file leave to defend application as such the eviction order against
Mrs. Harpal Singh has attained finality and as such she cannot be
impleaded at this stage and the application is liable to be rejected.
The counsel for the petitioners has been heard.
4. In the eviction petition, it is stated that Sh. Harpal Singh father
of petitioners was the tenant in respect of tenanted premises and
after his death, the petitioners including Mrs.Harpal Singh became
the tenant of respondent by operation of law. The impugned
eviction order is passed against all the petitioners as well as against
Mrs.Harpal Singh.
The petitioners have an independent right of challenging the
impugned order of eviction even if Mrs. Harpal Singh did not join
them in filing the present revision petition. It cannot be said that
the right of the petitioner will be defeated as Mrs. Harpal Kaur had
not contested the eviction petition by filing leave to defend
application. The petitioners ought to have made her a proforma
party to the present revision petition even if she did not join them at
the initial stages when the revision petition was filed. As the
petitioners have given justified reasons due to which they could not
make her earlier a party, no prejudice shall be caused to the
respondent if at this stage they are allowed to implead Mrs. Harpal
Singh as respondent no.2 in the petition, whereas a great prejudice
shall be caused to the petitioners if the application is not allowed.
Learned counsel for respondent has relied upon Invest Imprts
vs Watkin Mayor Co.; 1978 RLR 249. The judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel has no applicability to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
In view of above discussion, prayer made in the present
application is allowed. Let amended memo of parties be filed within
two weeks.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
kks
