Point of Law: A co-owner can file a Rent Petition independently or jointly with others, but in case he prefers an Eviction Petition independently, then also other co-owners being landlords shall also be entitled for the benefits of the order passed by the Rent Controller in case they succeed in establishing their co-ownership and entitlement in the property in reference in Rent Petition.

ORDER :

The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.10.2021, passed by the Rent Controller Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Rent Petition No.22/2 of 2007, titled as Tarun Sahni and others vs. Manhonan Sahni and another, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner and respondent No.7-Harish Anand, under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for impleading them as petitioners in the Rent Petition, has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before me.

3. Respondents No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlords/respondents’) have filed Rent Petition for vacation of premises, in reference in Rent Petition, for non-payment of arrears of rent and impairment of the premises by tenants Manmohan Sahni and Bal Krishan Sahni (respondents No.5 and 6) sons of late Sh. Sawan Shah Sahni (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenants’).

4. The Rent Petition is at its advanced stage, wherein after hearing arguments, final order is to be pronounced. Petitioner Sweety is real sister of tenants Manmohan Sahni and Bal Krishan Sahni. Respondent No.7 Harish Anand is son of Usha. Usha was also real sister of the petitioner and tenants respondents No.5 and 6. Petitioner alongwith respondent No.7 Harish Anand is claiming that they are entitled to be impleaded as petitioners for having right in the premises in question. Because, as co-owners, they are also entitled to receive rent as well as arrears of rent of the premises in question. Premises in question is situated in Khasra No.249 situated in upper Bazaar, Mauza Lower Bazaar, Solan.

5. Claim of the petitioner and respondent No.7 is based upon entries in Jamabandi for the year 1992-1993 (Annexure P-4) wherein Sawan Shah Sahni, father of petitioner, as well as tenants respondents No.5 and 6 have been shown as co-owner of Khasra No.249 alongwith his brothers Bhagat Ram (father of landlords-respondents) and Teerath Ram.

6. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on mutation No.535 dated 30.11.1998, whereby ownership of 1/3rd share in shop situated on land comprised in Khasra No.249/33, after death of Sawan Shah, on 22.07.1997, was transferred in favour of children of Sawan Shah Sahni namely Girdhari Lal, Manmohan, Rajpal and Bal Kishan (all sons) and Usha, Pammi, Shammi and Sweety (all daughters) and ownership of rest 2/3rd remained as it is i.e. in ownership of Bhagat Ram and Teerath Ram.

7. Landlords-respondents are claiming themselves as exclusive owners of the shop in question on the basis of mutation No.1272 dated 13.06.2005 whereby on the basis of family partition (Khangi Takseem), in the presence of all shareholders, shop comprised in Khasra No.249/33 has been transferred in favour of landlord-respondents namely Tarun, Rajesh both sons and Kiran daughter and Raj Kumari (wife of late Bhagat Ram).

8. Claim of the petitioner and respondent No.7 is that being co-owners they are also entitled for arrears of rent and in case they are not added as petitioners in Rent Petition, then for recovery of arrears of rent, for which they are also entitled they have to file a separate suit and, therefore, their non-impleadment in the Rent Petition, would result into multiplicity of litigation. It has further been stated on behalf of the petitioner that mutation No.1272 has been assailed by the petitioner by filing a Civil Suit against the landlords-respondents in which landlords-respondents have been proceeded ex parte and, therefore, right of landlords-respondents, claimed on the basis of mutation No.1272, is under cloud and, therefore, they cannot be stated to be absolute owners of the premises in question, rather they alongwith petitioner and others are co-owners and, therefore, rejection of application filed by the petitioner and respondent No.7 is not tenable and by doing so, the Rent Controller has committed illegality and material irregularity.

9. Learned counsel for the landlord-responden