IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA C.M.P (M.O.) No. 50 of 2010. Date of Decision: 21.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Krishan Lal Kalra. ….Petitioner. Versus Madan Mohan Lal and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Sheetal Khimta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is the tenant, has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla on an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the landlord. 2. I am not going into the legality of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner herein to urge before the learned Rent Controller that the impleadment was neither necessary nor proper for which purpose, an issue shall be settled by the Rent Controller and an opportunity shall be granted to the parties to lead evidence or to place such material in support of their respective contentions. Mere 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 impleadment of a party in the proceedings does not determine either his status or right. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim applications stand disposed of. Record if received be sent back to the learned Trial Court. May 21, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge