C.R. No.4046 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4046 of 2007 Date of Decision : 16.1.2008 Dr.Harbans Singh Matharu ....Petitioner Vs. S.Tarsem Singh ....Respondent ... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present : Mr.R.C. Dogra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a proper party, if not a necessary party to the ejectment petition. A civil suit is pending adjudication, between the petitioner and respondent no.1 (landlord), with respect to ownership of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that any adjudication as to ownership of the demised premises, would necessarily affect the rights of the petitioner in a pending civil suit. Reliance for the above proposition is placed upon Jagdish Lal Sharma V. Municipal Committee and other, 1998 (1) PLR 825 and Harbhajan Singh and others V. Malook Singh and another, 1992(2) PLR 709. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of C.R. No.4046 of 2007 2 jurisdiction or of law, as would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Admittedly, a civil suit with respect to the ownership of the property is pending adjudication before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Respondent no.1 has filed an ejectment petition against his tenant. The petitioner seeks to intervene in these proceedings on the plea that findings regarding ownership would prejudice his rights in the civil suit. It is settled law that in proceedings under the Rent Act, any adjudication, as to ownership of the demised premises does not bind third parties, asserting title. Merely because the petitioner, asserts ownership, a right pending adjudication before a civil Court, he cannot claim a right to intervene in proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 for ejectment of his tenant. The judgement relied upon Jagdish Lal Sharma's case (supra) does arise from proceedings under the Rent Act and the facts therein are entirely different. As regards the other judgement, namely; Harbhajan Singh's case (supra), the situation is no different. With the aforementioned observations, the present petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel, on payment of usual charges. 16.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE