C.R.No.8465 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.8465 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Reetu Bala .....Petitioner vs. Dr.Siri Krishan Bansal and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) Petitioner's application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for impleading her in the eviction proceedings titled as Dr.Siri Krishan Bansal v. Kewal Krishan was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P4). The present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 who is the landlord filed application for ejectment of respondent No.2, from the demised premises on the ground of non paym,ent of rent, personal necessity and that the building has become unfit and unsafe. The petitioner who is the daughter in law of respondent No.2 moved application for her impleadment in the proceedings before the Rent Controller stating that her husband was in bad habits and that the tenancy rights of the shop in question have come to her share in a family settlement and she is running the business in the shop in question, and now respondent No.2 has connived and joined hands with respondent-landlord to harass the petitioner. C.R.No.8465 of 2010 2 The application of the petitioner was contested by the landlord as well as the tenant. It was stated by the landlord that respondent No.2 was inducted as tenant in the demised shop and that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between them only and there is no relationship of landlord with the petitioner and the application is nothing but is the result of connivance of the petitioner with respondent No.2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2-tenant, it has been stated that the petitioner is neither a tenant nor have any right title and she has taken his signatures on blank papers forcibly to grab the tenanted premises and a complaint has already been filed with the authorities in this regard. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, has dismissed the application by observing as under:- “Neither the landlord nor the tenant has supported the application of applicant Reetu Bala. There is no evidence on record to prove that any family settlement has taken place in which the tenancy of the shop in question has fallen to the share of applicant Reetu Bala. The main eviction application is pending since 30.4.2002 and is being hotly contested by tenant. It cannot be said that the tenant is conniving with the landlord to surrender possession of the demised premises. The relationship of landlord and tenant is between Dr.Siri Krishan and Kewal Krishan and the eviction order can only be passed against respondent Kewal Krishan and not against applicant Reetu Bala. She cannot be impleaded as respondent No.2 in this case as she has no relationship of tenant with landlord. It seems that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings of the main case. I am of the opinion that the application deserves to be dismissed as applicant Reetu Bala is not a necessary party in this case and the case can be decided in C.R.No.8465 of 2010 3 her absence. Therefore, application is ordered to be dismissed.” Admittedly, the petitioner is daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 who is contesting the petition as a tenant. No pleadings have been shown before this Court on the basis of which it can be said that there is a collusion between the landlord and tenant. The fact remains that the present petition for eviction of respondent No.2 is pending since 2002. The petitioner is not claiming any relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No.1 and she is simply claiming her right on the basis of document Ex.P1 alleged general power of attorney in her favour executed by respondent No.2. The rights of the petitioner on the basis of said General Power attorney, if any, are inter se between her and respondent No.2 and cannot be gone into in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. No merit. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 25, 2011 rk