JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana in a rent petition vide which application filed by the respondent/tenant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the alleged co-owners as parties has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the respondent-Manjit Singh from the premises in question. It is further submitted that it was the case of the petitioners that they were co-owners- cum-landlords of the shop in question and had given the details with respect to their rights in the eviction petition. It is stated that to delay the proceedings, the respondent-tenant had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading three persons, who as per his case, were the co-owners of the property in question. It is argued that by virtue of the impugned order, the said application has been allowed and the said alleged co-owners have been impleaded as petitioners No.3, 4 and 5 in the main rent petition. It is argued that the impugned order is against law and deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors.”, passed in Civil Appeal No.3018 of 2008, decided on 25.01.2018 as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Sharad Kapoor Vs. Manjit Singh and others”, passed in CR No.6877 of 2017, decided on 01.06.2018. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the respondent/tenant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and since the other co-sharers were also seeking rent from the respondent-tenant, thus, in the said circumstances, the respondent-tenant was left with no other option but to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead all the co-owners of the property in question so that the respondent-tenant is not liable to pay rent for the same period to different landlords. It is prayed that the impugned order be upheld and the present revision petition be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present revision petition is meritorious and the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 is against law and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent-tenant under Order 1 Rule 10 deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the respondent-Manjit Singh from the shop in question. It was the case of the petitioners that they were co-owners-cum-landlords of the shop in question and the details as to how they had become co-owners/landlords of the premises in question was given in the eviction petition. The tenant/respondent moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading three persons as parties to the eviction petition. It is argued before this Court on behalf of the respondent/tenant that the said three persons are also co-owners of the property in question along with the present petitioners and thus they were required to be impleaded as parties. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 24.10.2024 had ordered the impleadment of the said three persons to be made as petitioners No.3, 4 and 5 in the main rent petition. It was observed that all the legal heirs of the deceased-Sarwan Singh, who was the