C.R.No.4042 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4042 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.7.2011 Ajmer Singh ...Petitioner vs Krishna Devi and another ....Respondents CORAM: MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.5.2010 whereby his application to implead him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in Eviction Petition No.17 of 2009 titled as Krishna Devi v. Darshan Lal, pending before Rent Controller,Pehowa, has been rejected. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a civil suit on 10.8.2009 for injunction against respondent No.1 (landlord) and others restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property either by demolishing or in any other manner except in due course of law, specifically pleading that he had taken the suit property (i.e. the demised premises) on rent from the defendants ( i.e. respondent No.1 in this petition). It is also averred that in the said civil suit the parties have been directed to maintain status quo qua the property in question. Petitioner also filed a petition under section 10 of the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying therein that electricity supply be ordered to be restored in the tenanted premises or he be allowed to get the electric connection in his C.R.No.4042 of 2010 2 name and the Rent Controller,Pehowa, vide his order dated 18.1.2010 ordered that the petitioner was entitled to get the electricity connection in his name in the premises in question subject to the decision of the petition, under section 10 of the Act. Respondent No.1 Krishna Devi filed a petition for ejectment under the Act against respondent No.2. In the said eviction petition the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that he was the actual tenant in the premises on payment of Rs.200/- per month. The said application was contested by respondent No.1-landlord. The Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 22.5.2010 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for impleadment. Hence this revision petition. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller has not appreciated the documents/evidence available on record as it is the specific stand of the petitioner that he is the actual tenant in the premises in question and, therefore, he ought to have been impleaded as a party and the said impleadment will facilitate the fair and proper adjudication between the parties. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order as well as other documents placed on the record of the case and the averments made in the revision petition. A perusal of the impugned order would show that respondent No.1 Krishna Devi has filed ejectment petition No. 17 of 2009 against respondent No.2 on various grounds including that the said tenant has sublet the tenant premises to the petitioner without her consent and has also C.R.No.4042 of 2010 3 transferred the possession and at present petitioner was in actual possession of the tenanted premises. It is well settled that a sub tenant is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings of a tenant. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner has already filed two petitions i.e. one civil suit for permanent injunction alleging himself to be a tenant in the suit property and a petition under section 10 of the Act for restoration of electric connection in his name claiming himself to be a tenant in the suit property. The civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner is earlier in time and petitioner is already persuing his remedy of permanent injunction claiming himself as a tenant in the civil suit. The petitioner is also enjoying status quo order in his favour as granted by the Civil Court. In the present eviction petition respondent No.1 has not sought any relief against the petitioner and the relief is claimed against Darshan Lal respondent No.2 for his ejectment on various grounds. Thus, in these circumstances, no fault can be founded with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 20, 2011 rk