Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2009 Gulshan Sehgal .............. Petitioner Vs. Asooba Singh and another .............Respondents Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. An application for impleadment of a third party claiming to be the owner of the property in a rent control petition was dismissed on the ground that the Rent Controller was not expected to adjudicate on title. The revision petition is directed against the order of such dismissal. 2. There can be no controversy that normally in a rent control proceeding, there could be no adjudication regarding title to the property of the landlord. The term 'landlord' itself is defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as a person " for the time being entitled to receive rent". In such a circumstance, the presence of a person who sets up title in a third party would be wholly irrelevant. 3. Some exceptions have to be carve out, for a landlord cannot be expected to plead ignorance of certain proceedings and prosecute before a Rent Controller, if the rights of parties have already been adjudicated before a Civil Court in relation to the very same property. In this case, it is brought Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M) -2- out that the landlord before the Rent Controller had actually suffered a decree in relation to the very same property when a third party's right was upheld. On 20.12.1978 a family settlement was alleged to have been brought about and a written instrument was drawn up in evidence of the understanding earlier on 16.06.1979. A decree is also said to have been drawn up in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar on 13.06.1989 between the father, mother and other brothers. In a partition so made in terms of which a decree had also been granted, the demised premises had been shown to have been allotted to the third-party applicant. The 'landlord' herself had acted on the decree which was passed on 13.07.1989 and received half payment of rent from the then tenant-Allahabad Bank and half the rent was received by the third party-applicant. Having regarding to the final adjudication of rights of parties at a Civil Court earlier, the question whether the landlord in the rent control petition could continue the proceedings or whether notwithstanding the Civil Court decree, the jural relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the parties already in the rent control petition assumes significance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for both sides have cited decisions that run contrary to each other. One line of authorities reported in Smt. Krishna and another Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and another 1991 (1) PLR 374 and Talib Hussain Vs. Peer Azhar Hussain and Ors 1998(2) CCC 630 lay down that issue of title is irrelevant in a rent control proceeding and a third party cannot seek for impleadment on the basis of title. However, the judgment Vidya Sagar Vs. Kesho Kumar and anr. 1979 (2) RCR 612 lays down that a third party claiming to be owner of the property could be impleaded as a party and it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 5. Although I am in respectful agreement with the general proposition that in the rent control proceedings, there could be no Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M) -3- adjudication regarding title, still the exception would be cases where there is unimpeachable evidence in which the landlord had been a party to a Civil Court proceeding and a third party had been found to be the owner and the alleged tenancy had arisen subsequent to such Civil Court adjudication. Here in such a case if the defence of the tenant had already been one of denial of title, the bona fides of denial could best be appreciated in the presence of another person who had unimpeachable Civil Court decree affirming his title. 6. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Rent Controller and allow the impleadment of the applicant-revision petitioner as a second respondent before the Rent Controller. Needless to state that it shall still be open for the landlord already on record to contend that the possession of the tenant was only under her and the possession could not be referred to the newly added party. Reserving such liberty to the landlord already before the Rent Controller, civil revision petition is allowed. The trial Court will allow appropriate steps for impleadment of the party effectively to be carried out by amendment and proceed to adjudicate on the rival contentions between the parties. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 03, 2009 Pankaj*