Civil Revision No.2178 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Revision No.2178 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 24.08.2009 **** Jaswant Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. B.L. Bajal and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Mrs. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the landlord whose application under Order XXII Rule 10, Order VI Rule17 and Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide a composite order dated 04.04.2009. Notice of motion was issued and in pursuance thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and impugned orders have been perused. The petitioner-landlord has filed an eviction application against the respondents, one of whom, is stated to be the direct tenant whereas the two are alleged to be sub- Civil Revision No.2178 of 2009 - 2 - tenants. The landlord has sought their eviction including on the ground of personal necessity by specifically alleging that he needs the premises for his son and grandsons. Respondents No.2 and 3, the alleged sub-tenants have taken a plea that they are direct tenants under the petitioner-landlord. Though, respondent No.1, the alleged direct tenant, is stated to have taken a contrary stand. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner-landlord has transferred 50 per cent share in the demised premises in favour of his son Jagjit Singh whose personal necessity is already pleaded for in the Eviction Petition. It is after the said transfer that the petitioner- landlord moved the above stated application for impleadment of his son as a co-petitioner and to incorporate the other consequential averments in the Eviction Petition. The application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller after observing that such an amendment or impleadment would change the nature of the proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Rent Controller cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner-landlord has already averred in the Eviction Petition that he requires the demised premises for his son Jagjit Singh and his grandsons, the impleadment of his son as a co-petitioner after transfer of 50 per cent share in the demised premises, per se, does not change the ground of eviction or nature of the proceedings. Civil Revision No.2178 of 2009 - 3 - The apprehension expressed by the respondents No.2 and 3 that the transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner’s son Jagjit Singh is a devise to throw them out of the premises, appears to be misconceived and without any basis for the reason that once they have taken a plea that they are direct tenants under the landlord, the Rent Controller is obligated to frame an issue to that effect and return a finding. For the reasons afore-stated, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 04.04.2009 is hereby set aside and the application moved by the petitioner-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is ordered to be allowed. The petitioner-landlord shall be entitled to file an amended Eviction Petition within 10 days to which respondent No.1 to 3 shall be entitled to file their respective amended written statements. The Rent Controller shall, thereafter, make an earnest effort to dispose of the Eviction Petition in the light of the observations already made by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 passed in Civil Revision No.4929 of 2008. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.08.2009 shonkar