RC.REV. No. 101/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 + CM No. 16191/2010 in RC.REV. 101/2009 GURPREET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amarjit Sahni, Adv. versus SMT MUNNI DEVI ..... Respondent Through : Mr. M.G. Dhingra, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? CM No. 16191/2010 1. Present application is filed by the petitioners/tenants under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Mrs. Harpal Singh, wife of late Sh. Harpal Singh, as respondent no.2 in the aforesaid revision petition. 2. It is stated that the respondent herein had filed an eviction petition against the petitioners including Mrs.Harpal Singh before the Ld.Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under section 14-D read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of tenanted premises i.e shop no.3 in property no.F-14/38, Model Town-II Delhi- 110009. It is stated that as per eviction petition, the tenancy was earlier in the name of Sh. Harpal Singh and after his death, his children i.e. the petitioners and their mother i.e. wife of Sh. Harpal RC.REV. No. 101/2009 Page 2 of 4 Singh became the tenants. The petitioner no.1 had filed leave to defend application on his behalf as well as for petitioner nos.2 & 3 as their attorney. Mrs. Harpal Singh did not file any application for leave to defend. The application of leave to defend of the aforesaid three petitioners was rejected by the learned Addl. Rent Controller/N.W./Rohini/Delhi and an eviction order dated 5.9.2009 was passed against all the petitioners including Mrs. Harpal Singh. The aforesaid eviction order has been challenged by the present petitioners before this court by filing a R.C.Revision No. 101/2009 wherein Mrs. Harpal Singh has not been made a party by the petitioners under the impression that she did not appear before the learned ARC and did not contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein as such was not required to be made a party. During the pendency of the present petition, respondent has moved an application before this court i.e. CM No. 14458/2010 wherein she has prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition on the ground that Mrs. Harpal Singh was a necessary party to the present petition and as petitioners have not made her a party as such revision petition was liable to be dismissed. To avoid the technical objection and for a just decision of the case, it is prayed that Mrs. Harpal Singh may be impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the present petition as a proforma party. 3. Respondent has opposed the application by contending that Mrs. Harpal Singh was a party before the trial court and she did not file leave to defend application as such the eviction order against Mrs. Harpal Singh has attained finality and as such she cannot be RC.REV. No. 101/2009 Page 3 of 4 impleaded at this stage and the application is liable to be rejected. The counsel for the petitioners has been heard. 4. In the eviction petition, it is stated that Sh. Harpal Singh father of petitioners was the tenant in respect of tenanted premises and after his death, the petitioners including Mrs.Harpal Singh became the tenant of respondent by operation of law. The impugned eviction order is passed against all the petitioners as well as against Mrs.Harpal Singh. The petitioners have an independent right of challenging the impugned order of eviction even if Mrs. Harpal Singh did not join them in filing the present revision petition. It cannot be said that the right of the petitioner will be defeated as Mrs. Harpal Kaur had not contested the eviction petition by filing leave to defend application. The petitioners ought to have made her a proforma party to the present revision petition even if she did not join them at the initial stages when the revision petition was filed. As the petitioners have given justified reasons due to which they could not make her earlier a party, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if at this stage they are allowed to implead Mrs. Harpal Singh as respondent no.2 in the petition, whereas a great prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners if the application is not allowed. Learned counsel for respondent has relied upon Invest Imprts vs Watkin Mayor Co.; 1978 RLR 249. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of above discussion, prayer made in the present RC.REV. No. 101/2009 Page 4 of 4 application is allowed. Let amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks. VEENA BIRBAL, J FEBRUARY 22, 2011 kks