CR No.3173 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** (1) CR No.3713 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 27.07.2011 Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Garshankar and another ...Respondents (2) CR No.3714 of 2011 (O&M) Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Garshankar and another ...Respondents (3) CR No.3715 of 2011 (O&M) Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Garshankar and another ...Respondents (4) CR No.3716 of 2011 (O&M) Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Garshankar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms. Neelofer Abida Parveen, Advocate for the petitioner. CR No.3173 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.3713 to 3716 of 2011 as common questions of fact & law are involved therein. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.3713 of 2011. Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.03.2011 whereby its application for impleadment in an eviction petition filed by the respondent No.1-Municipal Council against respondent No.2, has been dismissed. As per the averments, respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition against respondent No.2 on various grounds claiming itself to be the owner/landlord of the demised premises. The petitioner moved an application for impleadment in the aforesaid proceedings by submitting that the Punjab Wakf Board was owner/landlord of the suit property and the eviction petition between respondents No.1 and 2 is casting a cloud of doubt over the title of the Wakf Board. The aforesaid application was contested by the Municipal Council (respondent No.1). The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Garshankar observing as under:- "The present rent petition is pending since 31.1.2004. The petitioner has already completed its evidence. The case was fixed for evidence of respondent when the respondent moved an application for appointment of L.C. in order to ascertain in which khasra number the shop in question is located. The application of the respondent was dismissed on 25.9.2007. Thereafter, the case remained fixed for evidence of respondent. Later the respondent filed an application for amendment of the written reply. During the pendency of the application the present application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the CR No.3173 of 2011 (O&M) 3 applicant Board. For the purpose of disposal of the present rent petition the question before the question before this Court is whether the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the demised shop by the petitioner M.C. or not. If the first question is decided in affirmative then the second question before the Court shall be whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on any ground permissible under the Rent Act. The title of the petitioner over the demised shop is not the subject matter of dispute in the present case. It is a settled principle of law that a tenant cannot question the title of his landlord. In the present case this Court is not to decide as to whether the petitioner is owner of the demised shop or not. This Court is only to record a finding regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. The decision in the present petition is not likely to cast any cloud of doubt over the alleged title of the applicant over the demised shop. In the determination of the existence by otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the tenant. The applicant board is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The pendency of this petition does not cast any cloud of doubt over the claimed title of applicant Wakf Board. If the applicant Board feels that its title over the property comprised of khasra no.593/1(1-10) is disputed by the M.C. Garshanker, the applicant may approach the Wakf Tribunal, Hoshiarpur by separate proceedings. In the present petition title of the applicant over the khasra no.593/1(1-10) is not in question, therefore, the application of the Punjab Wakf Board being devoid any merits is dismissed". Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. CR No.3173 of 2011 (O&M) 4 No error can be found in the impugned order as observed by the Rent Controller. If the title of the petitioner Board is threatened, it may seek an independent remedy in accordance with law. It is needless to say that any decision of the Rent Controller inter se between respondents No.1 and 2 will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner. Disposed of. July 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Jyoti 1 JUDGE