Delhi High Court
Birbal Gaba vs Sarabjit Kaur & Ors. on 12 December, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1345/2012
Date of Decision: 12.12.2012
BIRBAL GABA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aly Mirza, Advocate.
Versus
SARABJIT KAUR & ORS. ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
+CM 20651/2012 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM (M) 1345/2012 & CM 20650/2012
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks
assailing the order dated 12.10.2012 of learned Addl. Rent Controller
(ARC), whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by
the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1 had filed a petition of eviction against the
respondents No. 2 & 3 from the suit premises, which was let out to
their father, and which, after his death, was in their possession. It was
averred in the petition that the respondents had partitioned the suit
premises into three portions, without her consent and knowledge and
two portions thereof, shown as 'A' and 'B' in the site plan, and one
portion shown as 'C', were respectively in possession of the
respondent No. 2 Kashmiri Lal Gauba (since deceased and represented
through LRs) and the respondent No. 3 Nand Lal. Both these
respondents were contesting the eviction petition. It was at this stage
that the petitioner, who is none-else, but the brother of the respondents
No. 2 & 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his
impleadment on the ground that one of the three portions of the suit
premises, was in his possession, and thus, he was a necessary and
proper party to be impleaded in the eviction petition. The learned ARC
vide impugned order dismissed the aforesaid application, observing
that the applicant/petitioner has not produced anything on record to
show his possession of any portion in the suit premises. It was also
opined that after the death of their father, the tenancy was inherited by
his legal representatives as joint tenants and not as co-tenants, and thus,
the petition could be filed against any of the legal representatives. In
this view of the matter, it was observed that since the respondents No.
2 & 3 had partitioned the suit premises and since they are in possession
thereof, the eviction petition was filed against them.
3. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is undisputed settled legal proposition of law that the legal
representatives of the deceased tenant succeed as joint tenants and a
petition filed against one of the legal representative alone is, by itself
maintainable. In the instant case, the petition was filed against two
legal representatives of the deceased father, who were sufficiently
capable of representing the entire suit premises. There is nothing on
record that there was any collusion between them and the
respondent/landlord. That being so, there is neither any relevancy nor
necessity of the petitioner/applicant to be impleaded as a respondent in
the eviction petition. Further, there is also nothing on record to
substantiate that at any point of time, the petitioner was ever in
possession of any portion of the suit premises. A mere photograph of a
portion of the suit premises, in possession of LRs of the respondent
No. 2, was not enough to believe him (petitioner) to be in possession of
such portion of the premises, when admittedly, this portion, of which,
the photograph was placed, was claimed to be in possession of the LRs
of the respondent No. 2. On being asked, learned counsel for the
petitioner fairly conceded to be not having any document to show the
possession of the petitioner or that at any point of time, he had ever
paid any rent to the landlord.
5. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of Addl. Rent Controller, calling for
any interference by this court. The petition has no merit and is hereby
stands dismissed in limine.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
DECEMBER 12, 2012
akb
