IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6903 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.11.2009 Krishan Tent Service Through its Proprietor and another .....Petitioners versus Harveen Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners are the tenants in S.C.F.No.17-18, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh. They are aggrieved at the dismissal of their application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 23 Rule 3-A and Section 11 & 12 of the CPC, by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide the impugned order dated 6.11.2009. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, while passing the impugned order, has observed that the application moved by the petitioner-tenants is totally misconceived, frivolous and is meant to delay the proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at some C.R. No.6903 of 2009 (O&M) 2 length, the impugned order and other records perused. The respondent-Harveen Kaur has filed an eviction petition against the petitioners. She has claimed herself to be the exclusive owner- cum-landlady of the demised premises, on the basis of a consent decree dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a Civil Suit between her and her brother. The petitioners, through the subject application, want to implead the brother of the respondent, namely, Sudeep Singh @ Sukhdeep Singh, on the ground that he is a co-owner in the demised premises on the basis of the previous consent decree dated 15.7.1998. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 6.11.2009. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Suffice it to observe that the petitioners have no locus-standi to question the later consent decree dated 25.4.2006, if any, suffered by the brother of the respondent in her favour. Dismissed. 26-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE