A lessee cannot file an ejectment application for personal necessity unless ownership is demonstrated; inclusion of proper parties is crucial for the resolution of disputes.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar in case bearing No.RP/201/2017, whereby the application filed by respondent no.2 - Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, for its impleadment, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the paper-book, are that respondent no.1 filed an application (Annexure P-2), under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as - the Rent Act of 1949), for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop, mentioned in the heading of the application.

3. The case of respondent no.1 (hereinafter called as - the landlord) is that petitioner (hereinafter called as - the tenant) was inducted into the shop in dispute vide agreement dated 12.09.1995. The terms and conditions settled between the parties were duly incorporated in the said agreement and on the basis of those terms and conditions, the landlord, by filing application, sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation.

4. The tenant filed reply to the application inter alia on the ground that at the time of execution of agreement dated 12.09.1995, the landlord did not disclose the fact to the tenant that the property was under lease with the landlord. Since the landlord himself is a lessee of the premises in question, he has no right to file ejectment application. The induction of tenancy of tenant in the demised premises has been admitted. It has been further stated that the shop in question is not owned by the landlord as he himself is a lessee. So, the ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord as the same is only available to a landlord/landlady, who is owner of the demised premises.

5. During the pendency of the case, an application has been moved by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar i.e. respondent no.2 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for impleading it as a party to the rent application.

6. The landlord contested the aforesaid application.

7. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Municipal Corporation, Amritsar cannot be impleaded as a party in the ejectment application as the controversy in question can be decided properly and effectively even without impleading the Corporation as a party. The cause of action and dispute between the parties is different from that of the Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner has argued that landlord concealed the fact in the application for ejectment that the property was taken on lease by landlord from the Municipal Corporation vide lease deed dated 17.05.1956 (Annexure P-7) and even that lease period has expired. The landlord is not an authorized occupant of the property in question. The said lease agreement is not denied by the landlord. The Municipal Corporation has claimed the ownership right in the demised premises disputing the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar is aggrieved person, so, has the right to file the application to be impleaded as party in the rent application. It has been further submitted that Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, who is owner of the demised premises, is a proper party. Reliance in support of the contentions has been placed on Udit Narayan Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another reported as 1963 AIR (Supreme Court) 786, S. Swaminathan v. State of Tamil