IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Amandeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Upinder Singh and others - Respondents
CR No. 2841 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Impleadment of Co-owners in Eviction Petition - The court dismissed the revision petition challenging the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which had dismissed the second application for impleading the petitioner as respondent No.3 in an eviction petition. The court relied on the principle that inter se dispute between co-owners is not required to be adjudicated upon in an eviction petition, and the Rent Controller has limited jurisdiction. The remedy for inter se disputes between owners is to file a civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which dismissed the second application for impleading the petitioner as respondent No.3 in an eviction petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings recorded by the trial Court were not contrary to the position of law or suffered from material irregularity. The court concurred with the reasoning given by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court and did not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the impleadment of the petitioner as respondent No.3 in an eviction petition and the interpretation of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that inter se dispute between co-owners is not required to be adjudicated upon in an eviction petition, and the Rent Controller has limited jurisdiction. The remedy for inter se disputes between owners is to file a civil suit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Namit Kumar, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby second application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as respondent No.3 has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner is claiming himself to be co-owner/landlord of the shop forming part of the property bearing Municipal Unit No.B-XXIX-1900/96/46, comprised in khasra no.294, 295 etc., khata no.316/394, 317/395 as per the jamabandi for the year 2003-2004 in Amandeep market, previously known as Inder Mohan Market, Satguru Nagar, Daba Lohara Road, Hadbast no.262, Ludhiana, upto the extent of 762 sq. yards with his mother and father, The first application for impleading the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.08.2019. The second application for impleadment was filed on the premises that after dismissal of the first application, compromise dated 05.08.2019 has been effected, whereas the said compromise was already in existence when the first application was dismissed on 21.08.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced order dated 26.07.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CR-3861 of 2019 and connected cases wherein it has been held as under: -
Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that Sh. Hardip Singh, one of the co-owners, has also filed separate eviction petition against the tenants. If that is so, he may file an application for transfer of the proceedings to the same Rent Tribunal so that the matters can be decided together. However, the co-owners cannot be impleaded as respondents.
Consequently, the orders under Challenge are set aside and the revision petitions are allowed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
4. On 08.05.2023 following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court: -
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court were either contrary to the position of law or suffered from material irregularity.
6. This Court concurs with the above reasoning given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that inter se dispute between co-owners is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in an eviction petition, and the remedy for such disp....
The court emphasized the importance of clarity in relief sought, considered the impact of delay on the respondent, and upheld the petitioner's right to cover all objections in the petition.
The court clarified that Section 10 of the CPC applies only to suits and not to applications in pending suits. Additionally, the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership/tit....
The Rent Controller's jurisdiction is limited to deciding eviction petitions and does not extend to adjudicating on the title of the landlord.
The landlord is required to prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the grounds for eviction, and the title to the premises in dispute is not essential for the decision of ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.