IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2660 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Sanjeev Kumar and others .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Garg, Advocatre, for the respondents. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. C.M.No. 10693-CII of 2011 C.M. is allowed as prayed, subject to just exceptions. C.R.No.2660 of 2011 The petitioner is aggrieved from the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 whereby the Rent Controller, Barnala, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to implead him, as a party in the rent proceedings titled as Radha Rani v. Sanjeev Kumar and another. As per the averments emerging from this petition, respondent No.3 filed ejectment petition against respondents No. 1 and 2 in the year 2007. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner purchased the demised premises/suit property in dispute from respondent No.3 and her brother vide sale deed dated 1253/4.6.2008. Thereafter, he moved the instant application for substituting his name as applicant-landlord in place of respondent No.3 in this ejectment petition. However, vide impugned order, the Rent Controller, Barnala, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the aforesaid application of C.R.No.2660 of 2011 2 the petitioner on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as in the aforesaid ejectment petition Radha Rani had claimed rent for the period prior to the date of sale. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be substituted as landlord in the ejectment petition. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, the Rent Controller, observed as under:- “Fact remains that it is a petition under section 13 of rent act filed by petitioner Radha Rani with above said version way back in April 2007. Applicant Surinder Kumar claims to have purchased this property on 04.06.2008. He does not seem to have any legal right to implead as petitioner in place of Radha Rani in this petition since he did not have any such cause of action on 13.04.2007 when this petition was filed. He may have become owner of demised premises but he was not landlord qua respondent No.1 at that time. Similarly is law laid down in judgment 2000(1) C.C.C. 313 (Rajasthan) relied upon by respondent. The applicant may file a separate petition if he is permissible under law. I do not find any merit in this application under consideration and same is declined. On request, adjourned to 4.05.2011 for entire evidence of petitioner at own responsibility”. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Rent Controller has failed to consider the material fact that the property in question stood purchased by the petitioner and no effective decree can be passed in the present case in his absence who is a necessary and proper party. Moreover, the evidence in the case was yet to started. Since after the sale the original landlord will not be interested in the ejectment proceedings, to do the substantial justice and effective adjudication., his prayer should have been allowed. C.R.No.2660 of 2011 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioner was not the owner of the suit property prior to 4.6.2008, he cannot be impleaded in the ejectment petition being a third party. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in the case of Narinder Pal Singh Bindra v. Harminder Kaur Dhindsa, 2000(2)R.C.R.229. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the averments made in this petition and other documents placed on record. There is no dispute that petitioner has purchased the suit property on 4.6.2008. In fact this is the respondents' own case that petitioner has filed another ejectment petition against them titled as Surinder Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar Rent Case No.68/9.9.2008, and the same is pending before Rent Controller, Barnala, for eviction of the respondents on various grounds. It may also be noticed that petitioner herein is seeking his substitution as an original landlord. Thus, the observation of the rent Controller that he has no legal right to be implead in the proceedings as he had no cause of action on 13,.4.2007 when this petition was filed is erroneous and misconceived as the petitioner is stepping into the shoes of the original landlord and he will be pursuing the ejectment proceedings of the respondents, in the case in hand from the stage where the original landlord respondent No,.3 has left. Whether the petitioner has any right on the basis of the averments made in the petition C.R.No.2660 of 2011 4 can only be decided after framing of issues and leading evidence. It may also be noticed that in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has also observed that a necessary party is that in whose absence rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated upon. No doubt, in ejectment proceedings, in normal circumstances, necessary party would be landlord and tenant but a third person in the peculiar circumstances may be a proper party. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner being a proper party is entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Thus, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be impleaded in the /rent application. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on the date fixed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 29, 2011 rk