ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the landlord-applicants against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Laskar, Gwalior (M.P.) in Eviction Case No.24/95-96X90-7, whereby the application filed by the intervenor-respondents under Order 1 rule 10 of the CPC for impledment has been allowed.

2. Brief relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the applicants had filed an eviction application under section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the respondent No. 2 on the ground of bona-fide requirement of his son before the Rent Control Authority, Gwalior. The respondent No. 3 intervenor filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 for impleadment in these eviction proceedings with the averment that it has obtained possession of the rented shop from the respondents tenant No.1 & 2 in the execution of a decree passed by the civil Court in its favour. The application of the intervener has been allowed by the impugned order against which this petition has been filed by the landlord/applicants.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in eviction proceedings pending between the landlord and tenant third party cannot be allowed to be impeladed even if the same claims to be the owner of the rented premises. In this case, the same respondent intervenor on earlier occasion filed an application for impleadment on 15.6.1998 which was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority vide order dated 3.9.1998 with the clear finding that impleadment of alleged owner of the property would convert the application of eviction into a title suit which is not permissible. The same intervenor filed another application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on similar grounds of the decree of civil Court in its favour which was dismissed by the same Rent Controlling Authority, but surprisingly the present application filed on the same grounds for impleadment has been allowed. The decree of the civil Court on the basis of which impleadment has been sought has been obtained by collusion. The present landlord is not party in the civil suit in which collusive decree has been passed. The dispute with regard to title of the property including disputed rented property herein is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the present eviction proceedings to continue. The present application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC has been filed concealing the material facts. The learned Rent Controlling Authority did not consider its earlier orders, whereby similar prayer of the impleadment and the application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on similar grounds were already dismissed. It also lost sight of the orders of different Courts having bearing on the issue which were filed by the landlord petitioners along with detailed reply to the application. The impugned order is per-se illegal which deserves to be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Lal Private Ltd. v. M.R. Murali, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 98.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- intervenor has submitted that the intervenor is owner of the rented property. He has filed a suit for eviction against the present tenants which was decreed by the civil Court. The decree has attained finality. In execution of the decree, it has obtained possession of the rented shop. The decree of civil Court is binding on the Rent Controlling Authority. Though, earlier application for impleadment by intervenor was dismissed but now the circumstances have changed with the decree of civil Court passed in favour of intervenor and with the execution there of. In such changed circumstances, the present eviction proceedings cannot be effectively adjudicated without impleading intervenor, hence, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petition deserves to be dismissed.