CR No.2662 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.2662 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2010 Prit Pal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Bharti Cellular and others ....Respondents. CR No.2663 of 2010 Prit Pal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Bharat Enterprises and others ....Respondents. CR No.2664 of 2010 Prit Pal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus M/s. Fore Solution and others ....Respondents. CR No.2665 of 2010 Prit Pal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh and others ....Respondents. CR No.2666 of 2010 Prit Pal Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Naresh Garg and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate for the respondents. ... CR No.2662 of 2010 2 Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. In brief, facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 and 3 herein filed an eviction petition against respondent No.1 herein under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that tenant has failed to pay rent towards the share of the landlords w.e.f. March, 2008. It is alleged in the eviction petition that tenanted property was earlier owned by Gurpartap Singh Sekhon along with respondents No.2 and 3 herein and Capt. Sarabjit Singh Sekhon and Mrs. Sheena Sekhon. Gurpartap Singh Sekhon was having 1/3rd share in the property in dispute and has executed registered will dated 17.3.2005 in favour of the original petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3 herein. It is further averred that after the death of Gurpartap Singh Sekhon on 5.6.2008, the original petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3 have become entitled to the rent from respondent No.1 to the extent of2/3rd share. In the eviction petition, present petitioner has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment saying in fact Gurpartap Singh Sekhon has executed the will about his share on 22.7.2005. In view of the will dated 22.7.2005, in favour of the present petitioner - applicant, alleged will dated 17.3.2005 in favour of the original petitioners – respondents No.2 and 3 has no effect. It is further averred that the dispute as to whether which of wills is genuine, is sub-judice before the competent CR No.2662 of 2010 3 Civil Court. It is further averred by the petitioner - applicant herein that the tenant is paying rent to the applicant admitting the applicant as owner/landlord of the tenanted property to the extent of 1/3rd share earlier owned by Gurpartap Singh Sekhon. The Rent Controller rejected the application moved by the applicant - petitioner herein vide impugned order, thereby holding that present eviction petition is filed against respondent No.1 on account of non-payment of arrears of rent and the Rent Controller is to adjudicate the matter regarding default in payment of rent and any other breach of condition of tenancy and the Rent Controller is not to adjudicate upon anyone's right to the title of the property. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. G.S. Punia, learned advocate for the petitioner - applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Satish Kumar Grover and others Vs. Surinder Kumar Grover and others, 1998(7)SC 508 and has argued that in a suit for eviction, if both the parties are claiming title on the basis of will then the safest course would be to implead both the parties claiming title over the tenanted property. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Keshav Kataria, advocate appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 argued that scope of eviction petition is limited and the tenant is ex-parte in the eviction petition and to save the tenant from eviction with the collusion of the tenant, applicant has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Jaswinder Singh Vs. Lakhbir Singh Walia, 2000(1) RCR 163 and argued that if one of the co-sharers has filed eviction petition CR No.2662 of 2010 4 and purchaser from other co-sharer can take necessary course under the law but cannot convert eviction petition to a title suit between them. Learned Single Judge of this court in Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) in paragraph of 16 has held as under: - “ Identical is the position herein. Even if the petitioners have any share in the property they can take necessary recourse under the law but by no stretch of imagination it can be taken that they can convert the eviction petition into a title suit between them and respondent No.1. So far as pleas of respondent No.2 are concerned, the learned Rent Controller would be competent to go into the same but it does not imply that the petitioners would become necessary parties. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Rent Controller. The presence of the petitioners is not necessary to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in the eviction petition.” However, the fact remains that in the matter of Jaswinder Singh (supra), purchaser from the co-sharer wanted to become a party in an eviction petition, however, in the present case, plaintiffs are claiming to have inherited the share of Gurpartap Singh Sekhon vide will dated 17.3.2005 and the applicant is also claiming to have inherited share of Gurpartap Singh Sekhon vide will dated 22.7.2005. The Apex Court in the matter of Satish Kumar Grover (supra) in paragraph 3 and 4 has held as under: - “3. On the basis of the Will dated 10-5-1989, Surinder Kumar, the respondent herein, moved the Rent Court for eviction of the CR No.2662 of 2010 5 tenant on the ground of his being in arrears of rent on account of default in timely payment thereof. Amongst others, the tenant raised the objection that he did not accept Surinder Kumar as his landlord pleading that there were six other heirs of the landlady who had succeeded to her estate. The trial court directed that those six left-outs be impleaded as parties to the eviction petition. The High Court in revision made an order to the contrary on the basis of proceedings which took place in the Probate Court, which has a distinct facet. There, it appears that the father of the parties who had projected Will dated 6-2-1989 in his favour made a statement that in the presence of the Will dated 10-5-1989, he was withdrawing claim to probate the Will in his favour, but it is otherwise the admitted position that probate proceedings regarding Will dated 10-5-1989 continue, in which all the natural heirs of the legator are parties, where the question of the validity of the Will has arisen, as the left-out heirs have pleaded that the Will is a forgery. 4. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the six left-out heirs represent the estate of their father and if the latter had given up his claim under the Will dated 6- 2-1989 and had not chosen to contest the Will dated 10-5- 1989, the six left-out heirs had no basis to intermingle in the matter. Rather such view has been taken in putting this plea in the mouth of the learned counsel appearing for those six persons. We think that this was an undesirable way of looking CR No.2662 of 2010 6 into the matter because but for the Will dated 6-2-1989, the father of the parties was not a natural heir to the estate of Smt. Sheelawati, legato. Natural heir to her estate were her three sons and four daughters. The six left-out heirs had thus a right of their own to put to challenge the Will of 10-5-1989 and are rightly in contest before the Probate Court in respect of that Will. Their plea of being natural heirs of the deceased being not open to question, they had a right to be impleaded in the eviction petition on the basis of their being co-owners of the property unless on successful probate of the Will, Surinder Kumar gets possession, divesting the other natural heirs. We therefore think that the High Court instead of clarifying the matter, rather complicated it; more so when attempting to clarify it further by means of a review order.” In the opinion of this Court, facts before the Apex Court in Satish Kumar Grover’s case (supra) are almost identical. Hence, relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Satish Kumar Grover (supra), the petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Application moved by the applicant - petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands allowed. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of each connected case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.09.2010 sk.