Najmi Waziri, J.:--

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 22.8.2013 of the Rent Control Tribunal in Rent Appeal No. 14/13. The impugned order upheld the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller which had rejected the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking impleadment in the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of the tenants declared therein.

2. The eviction-petitioner’s case was that Shri P.C. Soni was the owner/landlord of shop bearing No. B-30, Khan Market, New Delhi, which was let out to Shri L. Queth Khong on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. Since there were considerable arrears of rent, eviction of the tenant was sought under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, the tenant, Shri L. Queth Khong claimed the partnership firm M/s. K.K. Lee to be the tenant. The Court rejected the plea and held Shri L. Queth Khong as the tenant and an order was passed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The tenant’s appeal against the said dismissal was rejected by the appellate court so was the subsequent revision petition [CM (M)] by this Court on 18.1.2012. The landlord Shri P.C. Soni got to know that the tenant Shri L. Queth Khong had shifted to Canada and resided there till his demise but prior to his departure from India he had illegally sub-let the tenanted premises to his brother, one Shri Mankhong Lee and the applicant Shri Richard Lee, who after his death are in physical possession; that neither the wife nor the son of the deceased tenant, Shri L. Queth Khong, were in physical possession of the same. Accordingly an eviction was sought under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act which stipulates a ground for eviction where the tenant has sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing. The eviction-petitioner had relied upon the judgement of the Additional Rent Controller in eviction petition No. 421/89 titled Prem C. Soni v. L. Queth Khong decided on 24.10.1998 which held the respondent L. Queth Khong was a tenant as opposed to M/s. K.K. Lee, the partnership firm. The judgement clearly recorded that Mr. L. Queth Khong in his individual capacity was the tenant and not the firm M/s. K.K. Lee. The learned ARC had allowed the present petitioner’s impleadment application on the ground that the earlier petition initiated by the landlord was filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act since it concerned the non-payment of arrears of rent whereas the present case was filed on the grounds of sub-letting of the tenanted premises. He was of the view that the factors discussed in the judgement of Devki Nandan v. Om Prakash & Anr. 1972 RCR 321 which was referred to in the judgement of 24.10.1998 were sufficient to hold that there was no sub-letting. The learned ARC was further of the view that the question as to who was the tenant in the tenanted premises or whether the applicant through M/s. K.K. Lee was a tenant was the matter at issue, i.e., whether Shri Richard Lee was inducted into the premises without the knowledge and consent of the eviction-petitioner, had yet to be determined.

The Court distinguished between the present case and the judgement titled Balavant N. Viswamitra & Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule AIR 2004 SC 4377 relied upon by the eviction-petitioner which had held that the subtenants cannot be said to be necessary parties to the suit proceedings and are not required to be joined as defendants in the suit and that nonjoinder of such sub-tenants to the suit would not make a decree passed in the suit nullity or inexecutable apropos a sub-tenant. The learned ARC was of the view that the ratio of that decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document