IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.12.2025 The Municipal Committee, Gardhiwala, Hoshiarpur ...Petitioner versus Bhagwant Kishore and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ preferred by petitioner in rent appeal u/s 12 of East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1949 Act’), filed by respondent No.1 claiming himself to be tenant of respondent No.2, was dismissed.

2. Facts in present case are not in dispute. Three sets of litigation are pending in the appellate Court which had passed impugned order. Respondent No.2 claiming himself to be landlady had filed an eviction petition against respondent No.1 for eviction, which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2017 passed by Rent Controller, Dasuya against which respondent No.1 had preferred appeal, which is stated to be pending before learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The second set of appeal is also preferred by respondent No.1, who is aggrieved by dismissal of his petition u/s 12 of 1949 Act. The third appeal has been preferred by respondent No.2 being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.08.2019 in suit preferred by Kamaljit Singh and petitioner herein against her and one Subhash Chander vide which petitioner has been held to be owner of suit property. Third appeal along with two other preferred by respondent No.1 is also pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. During the pendency of appeal preferred by respondent No.1, who claims to be tenant of respondent No.2, application for impleadment has been preferred by petitioner, claiming to be owner of suit property on the basis of decree dated 17.08.2019. The said application was dismissed by learned first appellate Court on following two grounds:-

i. That earlier also an application was preferred by petitioner for impleadment as a party, which was withdrawn by petitioner without any liberty to file fresh one in 2019 and subsequent application decided vide impugned order is accordingly not maintainable; and ii. That applicant is not necessary party as suit is between tenant and landlady has nothing to do with the ownership of the property.

3. On consideration, I find that Court below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the present case and has rightly dismissed the application for impleadment of petitioner as necessary party. Petitioner is claiming to be owner of suit property. Respondent No.1 is not seeking any claim or relief against petitioner as he is not considering himself to be a tenant under petitioner. His case is that he is tenant against respondent No.2. Relationship of landlord and tenant is independent to right of ownership. Therefore, petitioner, who has not been impleaded or considered to be landlord, was not considered to be a necessary party in petition u/s 12 of Act filed by respondent No.1. In view of nature of litigation, it cannot be held that petitioner has any right to contest the appeal before appellate Court being owner of the property on the basis of judgment and decree dated 17.08.2019. The rights of petitioner shall be governed by judgment and decree dated 17.08.2019 or by order passed by higher Courts, as appeal against said order is pending in the appellate Court.

4. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where respondent No.1 is not seeking any relief against petitioner and not considering petitioner to be landlord, no right accrues in favour of petitioner to intervene and be a party in the appeal preferred by tenant. However, it is made clear that rights of party shall be governed by decisions made in pending appeals in accordance with law.

5