IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-7305-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-14.10.2025 Madhu Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS Dev Harpreet Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, in case titled as “Dev Harpreet Singh v. Ajay Handa and another”, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

Brief facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a rent petition titled “Dev Harpreet Singh v. Ajay Handa and another” was filed by respondent No.1–landlord before the learned Rent Controller, Batala, seeking ejectment of tenants Ajay Handa and Ashok Handa from a shop forming part of the property in dispute. In the said petition, it was pleaded that the shop in question was originally taken on rent by late Madan Gopal, who was the father of the present petitioner, Madhu Rani, and of her brothers, Ajay Handa and Ashok Handa. Upon the death of Madan Gopal, the tenancy was continued by his sons, Ajay and Ashok, who were impleaded as respondents in the ejectment petition. The present petitioner, being the daughter of Madan Gopal, was not made a party to the said proceedings.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her father, she, along with her two brothers, inherited the tenancy rights and became co-tenants in respect of the demised shop. The business established in the said shop by her father was continued by her brothers, who were managing the day-to-day affairs, while she, being married and residing at Jalandhar, was given a monthly share of profit out of the business income. Later, when the family members discussed expansion of the business, the petitioner came to know for the first time about the pending rent petition for ejectment. Thereupon, she moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the learned Rent Controller seeking to be impleaded as a necessary party in the said proceedings, claiming that her rights as a co-tenant were directly affected. The said application, however, was dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 02.08.2025.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical and cursory manner without properly appreciating the facts and law applicable to the case. It is contended that the tenancy was created in favour of Madan Gopal, the father of the petitioner, and after his demise, the tenancy rights devolved jointly upon his legal heirs, namely, the petitioner and her two brothers. Consequently, the petitioner, being one of the co-tenants, was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings and ought to have been impleaded to enable the Court to pass an effective and binding order. It is further argued that non-joinder of a necessary party renders the proceedings defective in law and that it is a settled principle under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC that any person whose presence before the Court is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute should be added as a party at any stage of the proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the principle that “no person should be condemned unheard” and that the rights of all individuals having a legal interest in the subject matter must be safeguarded. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be impleaded as respondent in the ejectment petition.

5. Since the controversy involved is short and the matter pertains only to impleadment, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents, particularly when the impugned order has been examined in