IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5159 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2008 Jatiya Samaj Vikas Samiti Regd. Jhajjar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate vs. Surender and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jhajjar whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the State of Haryana through its Custodian Department for its impleadment in an eviction petition, has been allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the ownership of the State of Haryana qua the subject property does not appear to be in dispute, I am of the considered view that the State being an actual owner, is undoubtedly a proper, if not necessary, party to the proceedings and no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Rent Controller while allowing its application. No interference in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. C.R. No.5159 of 2007 -2- However, the observations made here-in-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the eviction petition filed by the petitioner claiming itself to be landlord qua respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same shall be decided by the Rent Controller in accordance with law. May 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE