Civil Revision No. 3126 of 2005 1 ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3126 of 2005 Date of decision : 25.5.2010 Usha Prashar and others ....Petitioners Versus Rakesh Prashar and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kawaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners filed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for being impleaded in the Rent Appeal No. 34 of 2002, as legal heirs of Satkam Prashar. An indication about the backdrop of litigation would enable easy appreciation of the controversy. Rakesh Prashar son of Satkam Prashar had filed an ejectment plea against Gurbax Singh, for eviction of the latter from the tenanted commercial booth No.3025, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. The plea came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide order dated 8.5.2002. Gurbax Singh tenant filed a rent appeal (No.34 of 2002) against that eviction order. It is in the course of the proceedings in appeal that the plea aforementioned under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section Civil Revision No. 3126 of 2005 2 ****** 151 C.P.C., came to be filed by the petitioners herein. The averment, made in support thereof, was that they are the legal heirs of Satkam Prashar. In that very context, it was averred that Rakesh Prashar had also filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 8.11.1993 which (suit) was being contested by the petitioners herein. Rakesh Prashar had also filed a suit for a permanent injunction against his own father in the year 1997 with a view to restrain the latter from receiving rent of the tenanted premises. In that suit, the petitioners herein received a notice in their capacity as legal heirs of their deceased father. The further plea raised is that Rakesh Prashar had also filed an injunction suit against his brother Dinesh Prashar, who is co-owner of booth No.28, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, and had obtained an exparte stay on an averment that he is in exclusive possession thereof as a licencee. The suit came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court in August, 2001. It is averred that Rakesh Prashar alone is not the sole owner of the premises in dispute and the petitioners herein are also co- owners thereof. It is on the above factual premise that the latter filed a plea for their impleadment at the trial. The plea was contested by the respondent Rakesh Prashar on an averment that the impleadment plea was inappropriate inasmuch as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners herein and the tenant. It was further averred that the determination of the title of the tenanted premises was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller. Civil Revision No. 3126 of 2005 3 ****** Learned Appellate Authority held that the ejectment proceedings being between the landlord and the tenant about the title as between the landlord and other claimants-co-owners could not be gone into in the rent proceedings and the plea for impleadment could not be allowed. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that the impleadment of the petitioners would enable the learned Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the controversy effectually and completely and that the interest of the respondents would not be hurt in any manner. The plea raised is devoid of merit. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that a plea for ejectment has to be adjudicated upon as between the purported landlord and a tenant. It would not be competent for the learned Rent Controller to go into the controversy about the title of the tenanted premises. A controversy of the indicated category has to be necessarily adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. If any authority, in support of this view of mine is required, reference may be made, with advantage to Rajinder Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh and others (1991- 1) The Punjab Law Reporter 375. No law taking a contrary view was cited before this Court. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE