CR No.3331 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3331 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 26.08.2009 **** Rakesh Mohindra . . . . Petitioner VS. Tejinder Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8th April, 2008 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner (Rakesh Mohindra) for his impleadment as party/respondent in eviction petition filed by respondent No.1, against respondent No.2, has been dismissed. The above-stated eviction petition has been filed by respondent No.1, against M/s. Magor Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor Jagdish Chander Mohindra. The petitioner admittedly happens to be the son of said Jagdish Chander Mohindra. He claims that there are two tenancies, one in favour of the firm owned by his father and the other in his own favour. The said plea has, however, been disputed by the respondent-landlord as according to him, the entire premises was let out to respondent No.2 only. CR No.3331 of 2008 - 2 - Since the respondent-landlord has not chosen to implead the petitioner as a party/respondent and he being the master of his eviction petition, the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party against the wishes of landlord-respondent. I, therefore, do not find any error of jurisdiction committed while passing the order dated 08.04.2008 by the Rent Controller. Suffice it to say that the Rent Controller would obviously examine the respondent-landlords’ plea that there is a single tenancy of the demised premises in favour of respondent No.2. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.08.2009 shonkar