Civil Revision No.3762 of 2007 : 1 : Civil Misc.No.1197-CII of 2008 and Civil Misc.No.13979-CII of 2007 Civil Revision No.3762 of 2007. ***** Hargobind Cooperative House Building Society Limited and another Vs. Parminder Kaur and another Present: Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. **** Civil Misc.No.1197-CII of 2008 Application allowed. Reply taken on record. Civil Misc.No.13979-CII of 2007 This revision petition has been filed by Hargobind Cooperative House Building Society Limited and Adarsh Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Phagwara. Concededly the petitioners were not party before the Rent Controller. Respondent Parminder Kaur and her husband Harjodh Singh had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction of a tenant, i.e., HOUSEFED. The ground pleaded was that the tenanted property was needed for personal use by the respondents, who are NRI. This petition was contested by HOUSEFED (proforma respondent) and after considering the rival plea, the ejectment of the HOUSEFED has been ordered from the demised premises finding that the same is needed for personal use Civil Revision No.3762 of 2007 : 2 : and occupation by the respondents-NRIs. HOUSEFED has not filed any petition impugning the order of their ejectment, but the revision has been filed by two Cooperative Societies, referred to above. Alongwith the petition, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed by the said Societies for being impleaded as a party to the rent petition so as to prosecute the present revision. While issuing notice of this application, the ejectment of the Cooperative Societies was stayed. The respondents-NRIs have filed reply to this application saying that this application is mischievous and frivolous. It is further stated that this is only aimed at seeing that there is a denovo trial of the case by getting them impleaded as parties before this court. It is further mentioned that Civil Revision Petition No.2675 of 2007 filed by one Ramesh Kumar titled as Ramesh Kumar versus Parminder Kaur and another is dismissed by this court on 25.5.2007. In this case, need of the respondents-NRIs as projected is similar to the claim as in the present case. Against the order dated 25.5.2007, said Ramesh Kumar filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed on 12.10.2007. Copy of the order dated 25.5.2007 passed by this court in the petition filed by Ramesh Kumar has also been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. While dismissing this petition, this court has observed that the landlords, i.e., the respondents in the present case are the owners and are NRIs. Even their bonafide requirement of shop for personal use and occupation has also been accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any record which would prove that they are tenants of the Civil Revision No.3762 of 2007 : 3 : respondents. He made an attempt to pass on photo copies of bulky records, which according to him, were entries in the ledger saying that the rent was regularly paid to the landlord. This record, which are photo copies of some ledgers are not on record of the case. This record cannot be seen by this court at this stage. No proper application for placing any such document on record is made. There is, thus, no basis on which the petitioners can be said to be proper or necessary party in this rent petition to enable them to maintain the revision petition. The application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC accordingly is dismissed. Civil Revision No.3762 of 2007 Since the petitioners are not parties before the Rent Controller, they have no locus to challenge the order passed by the Rent Controller. Revision stands accordingly dismissed. January 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE