CW-6876/09 - Jagdish Lohariwala Vs. Chanda Prakash Judgment dt.20.7.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6876/2009 Jagdish Lohariwala Vs. Chanda Prakash. Date of order : 20th July, 2009 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Rajesh Panwar for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Khatri for the respondents. ------- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.5.2009 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner Jagdish to be impleaed in the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-Chandra Prakash. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner applicant Mr. Rajesh Panwar submits that in the statement recorded by the the learned trial court on 25.4.2009 the plaintiff Chandra Prakash has admitted in the cross-examination that all the three sons Sita Ram, Indra Kumar and Ramanand were carrying on the business with their father Ram Kumar at the time of his death in the suit shop. However, the suit was filed impleading only Ram Kumar as defendant. The applicant came with the case that he was working with his father Indra Kumar in the business on same suit shop and, therefore, the plaintiff was not CW-6876/09 - Jagdish Lohariwala Vs. Chanda Prakash Judgment dt.20.7.09 2/3 justified in not impleading Indra Kumar also as the defendant in the present suit. Since he claims that he is working with his father Indra Kumar in the said suit shop till his death, he falls in the definition of tenant under Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in rejecting his application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other side opposes these submissions and submits that since only Ram Kumar was carrying on his business at the time of Ram Kumar, therefore, neither Indra Chand nor his son, the present applicant Jagdish has right to be impleaded in the said suit. 4. Having heard leaned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that in view of admission of the plaintiff in the statement dated 25.4.2009 recorded by the learned trial court that all three sons of Ram Kumar were working with him in the business on the suit shop and in view of the averments made by the present applicant in his application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. that he was working with his father Indra Kumar in the said suit shop until his death in the year 2008. CW-6876/09 - Jagdish Lohariwala Vs. Chanda Prakash Judgment dt.20.7.09 3/3 Therefore, he was required to be impleaded in the said suit. For impleadment it is enough to see that continuity of business in the third generation is there and the averments made by the applicant in his application that he was working with his father Indra Kumar until his death in the business at the said suit shop has not been rebutted by either the plaintiff or other co-defendant. Therefore, it appears that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. of the present applicant-petitioner. 5. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16th May, 2009 is set aside and the application filed by the present applicant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed and he will be arrayed as defendant in the suit. However, in view of the fact that the suit is pending for last 20 years, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from today. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.20 babulal/