IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 403 of 2010. Date of decision: 19.4.2011. Smt. Veena Sood …Petitioner. Versus Ramesh Kumar Sood & Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Sh. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with S/Sh. B.C. Verma & Y.P. Sood, Advocates. For the respondent No.2: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 2.8.2010 whereby the learned Rent Controller (IV), Shimla has rejected the application filed by the present apetitioner for impleading her as party in the petition. 2. The respondent No.1 filed a petition for eviction of respondent No.2 from building No.8, The Mall Shimla. According to respondent No.1, the said property was bequeathed to him by its original owner late Smt. Durga Devi by means of a Will. The petitioner who claims to be the adopted daughter of late Smt. Durga Devi has 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : already filed a Civil Suit No. 11/1 of 2008 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shimla wherein the question as to what is the right of respondent No.1 in the property is under challenge. The question of title cannot be decided by the learned Rent Controller and can only be decided in civil proceedings. 3. In the present case, the petitioner is not a necessary or a proper party and her application has rightly been rejected. It is, however, made clear that any findings given by the learned Rent Controller in the absence of the petitioner shall not in any manner affect/influence the decision of the civil suit which has to be decided on the basis of the evidence recorded in the same. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge April 19, 2011. (Krn Guleria)