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.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner's application to implead Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi, as respondents, in an eviction petition filed against Sh. Anil kumar son of Sh. Satpal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been dismissed on 03.11.2017 by the Rent Controller. In the unamended petition, the petitioner claims that Sh. Anil Kumar is his tenant and she bonafidely requires the premises for her own use and occupation.

2. While contesting, the respondent alleged that the petition is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties as he along with his brother Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi are also in possession. It was stated that originally their predecessor, namely, Sh. Satpal was the tenant in occupation.

3. The petitioner's application has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to assert categorically, 'As to whether Sh. Sunil Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi are also tenants in occupation or not?' It has been held that the application moved by the petitioner is not particularly clear about the relief sought.

4. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

5. The learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the petitioner's application was filed after a period of 2/2 years from the date of filing of the written statement. Hence, the application cannot be allowed. While elaborating the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that in this case the petitioner was negligent in properly impleading the parties and allowed the litigation to continue as it is, hence, at this stage the application for impleadment should not be allowed.

6. The respondent continues to be in occupation of the tenanted premises. He has not suffered any loss on account of such delay. In his written statement, it is the respondent who has asserted that the petition filed by the landlord is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. In order to obviate any subsequent difficulty, the landlord filed the application in order to meet with any future complication regarding the fate of the case. It is not in dispute that the shop in question is the same. The respondent and the persons who are sought to be impleaded, are members of the family. In such circumstances, the Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the application for impleadment. The petitioner is entitled to file a petition covering all the aspects in order to cover all the objections which may be taken at the time of arguments by the opposite counsel.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order dated 03.11.2017 is set aside. The petitioner's application for impleadment shall stand allowed. The Rent Controller is requested to proceed with the said matter.

8. The revision petition is allowed.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.