A decree of eviction passed against one co-tenant is not binding on other co-tenants who were not impleaded as party to the eviction petition.

( 1 ) LATE Kartar Singh Puri was the owner/landlord of premises bearing No. 1/59, Double Storey, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 constructed on an area of 40 sq. yds. This property was alloted to said Kartar Singh by the Custodian of Evacuee property. The said Shri Kartar Singh died in 1982 leaving behind his widow Smt. Uttam Kaur, the respondent No. 1 herein. After the death of her husband, she became the owner/landlord of the premises in question. The premises consists of one room, one kitchen and WC on the first floor and common latrine in a separate block. The respondent No. 1. Smt. Uttam Kaur being a aged widow and in need of her premises filed an eviction petition in 1992 against respondent No. 2 Shri Mohinder Pal Singh son of late Shri Joginder Singh under Sectionl4-D andl4 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (here in after called the Act ). Her case was that Shri Mohinder Pal Singh (in short M. P. Singh) was her tenant. Since she was in need of the premises for her bona fide requirement, therefore, M. P. Singh should vacate the same. Notices were sent to the said M. P. Singh but were returned. The learned ARC finding that he was deliberately avoiding service ordered substituted service on M. P. Singh. After serving him by proclamation appearing in the newspaper, the learned ARC proceeded ex parte against M. P: Singh. Respondent No. 1 in her petition had pleaded that Shri M. P. Singh was her tenant and that she needed the premises for her requirement. The learned ARC granted ex parte decree of eviction in her favour. Shri M. P. Singh filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree. That petition was dismissed. Revision filed against the dismissal of his application was also dismissed. This Court while disposing of his revision held that M. P. Singh was properly served and he intentionally did not put in appearance. This Court upheld the order of the learned ARC whereby he passed an ex parte order granting possession to respondent No. 1 herein (petitioner in that petition ). M. P. Singh filed special leave petition in Supreme Court. The Apex Court dismissed his special leave petition, Smt. Uttam Kaur respondent No. 1 filed execution in order to reap the fruit of her decree.

( 2 ) IT is at this stage that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Rajinder Kaur filed her objections to the execution thereby staking her claim to be the tenant of the premises in question. She alleged that her late husband Shri Joginder Singh who was in fact the tenant of the premises in question. On death of Shri Joginder Singh in April, 1990, all the legal heirs became tenant. She being his widow having been residing with her husband in this premises had a right to challenge the execution on the ground that she was not impleaded as party in the eviction petition, hence decree of eviction was not binding on her. Vide order dated 18th October, 1996 those objections filed by petitioner No. 1 were dismissed.

( 3 ) IT was the case of the petitioner No. 1/objector that the decree passed against M. P. Singh was not binding on other co-tenants because they were not impleaded as party to the eviction petition. That very important question of law as to whether Joginder Singh was a tenant in the premises or M. P. Singh ? It requires consideration and decision after recording evidence. If it is held that Joginder Singh was the tenant, then order of eviction passed against M. P. Singh is liable to be set aside and binding on the petitioners.

( 4 ) REFUTING these arguments, Mr. K. R. Chawla appearing for respondent No. I contended that no document has been placed on record to show that late Joginder Singh was the tenant in this premises. Even otherwise Joginder Singh during his life-time was living in the house of his son at Pandav Nager. He never lived in the premises in question as tenant. Shri Joginder Singh died at Pandav Nagar. Ration card of Joginder Singh as well as his death certificate clearly prove th