JUDGMENT

M.M. Kumar, J. – This petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenges order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri allowing the application of one Ajaib Singh for his impleadment as respondent no.2. It has been claimed by Ajaib Singh that he is a tenant in the demised premises under some other landlord namely Kanti Kumar. The case set up by the landlord-petitioner is that Gurmukh Singh is her tenant who is liable to be ejected under Section 13 of the Act. There is no claim made against Ajaib Sigh, respondent no.2. However, the learned Rent controller accepted the application and permitted impleadment of Ajaib Singh, In para 5 of the order, the Rent Controller has taken the afore-mentioned view which reads as under:

“ It is admitted case of the parties that previously Amar Singh and Sukhdev Singh were owners of the shops including shop in dispute. It is case of the petitioner that Gurmukh Singh had taken the shop in dispute on rent. Whereas applicant is alleging that he has taken the shop in dispute on rent from Amar Singh. At this stage, this point cannot be thrashed out without any evidence on the file. This point will be thrashed out on the lateral stages when both the parties will lead evidence on their respective issues. The applicant have also placed on the file photostat copies of the rent receipts vide which he had paid rent to Amar Singh. If Ajaib Singh was not tenant in the premises in dispute under Amar Singh then what was (sic ?) occasion Amar Singh son of Hazara Singh had (sic?) issued various receipts in favour of Ajaib Singh son of Nihal Singh. There is one receipt vide which Ravinder Kumar attorney of Kanti Kumar had received rent from applicant. Even some rent receipts are in favour of Gurmukh Singh respondent in this case. As such different rent receipts placed on the file, the tenant of the applicant or respondent cannot be ascertained (sic ?). Even some rent receipts are in favour of Gurmukh Singh respondent in this case. As such different rent receipts placed on the file, the tenant of the applicant or respondent cannot be ascertained. Even admittedly the connection in shop in dispute is in the name of applicant Ajaib Singh. All these documents clearly shows that applicant Ajaib Singh is in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant. As such, he is necessary and proper party for just decision of the case. Ld. counsel for the applicant has also relied upon 1983(1) RCR 37 in case titled Devi Dayal vs.  Som Raj (Delhi), it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court that application for ejectment of the tenant and application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (sic ?). The respondent is in possession of the premises in dispute for a long time and contending himself as tenant. Respondent is added as party to the suit. The law laid down in this citation is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The ld. counsel for the petitioner had relied upon 1989(1) RCR 704, in case  Vijay Singh vs. Dharam Pal and others, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. As the applicant Ajaib Singh is necessary and proper party for just decision of the case, accordingly application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the applicant Ajaib Singh is hereby allowed.”

2. Shri H.R. Nohria, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has argued that the petitioner is dominus litus and is thus entitled to implead any person as a party and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only necessary parties could be joined in the proceedings of ejectment. The learned counsel has emphasised that as per his own showing Ajaib Singh, respondent no.2 does not claim any relationship with the petitioner who had sought ejectment of respondent no.1 Gurmukh Singh under Section 13 of the Act. On the contrary Ajaib Singh has claimed that one Kanti Kumar is his landlord. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgement of this court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. Dharam Pal and ors 1989(1) RCR 704.

3. Shri Jasbir Rattan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has placed reliance on a judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Devi Dayal Dixit vs. M/s Rashtriya Electrical and Engineering Company 1983(1) RCR 37 and argued that once respondent no.2 is in possession then he would be a necessary party.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that respondent no.2 is not a necessary party because no claim by the landlord has been made against him. Infact it is admitted position that respondent no.2 is a tenant under Kanti Kumar. Once there is no relationship between the landlord-petitioner and respondent no.2 it cannot be held that he is a necessary party. The views taken by this Court in Vijay Singh’s case (supra) fully applies to the facts of the instant case. It is well settled that even in case of subletting a sub tenant is not a necessary party although he might be in possession of the demised premises. For the afore-mentioned proposition a reference may be made to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. vs. Pheroze Fromroze Taraparowala AIR 1953 SC 73. Moreover, the petitioner is dominus litus and if he has not impleaded the respondent no.2 as a party he cannot be compelled to fight litigation against him. It is needless to say that any adjudication between the petitioner and Gurmukh Singh, respondent no.1 would not have any affect on respondent no.2.

5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Dhuri is set aside.

Petition allowed.

********