CR No.3366 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3366 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10 - 9 - 2010 Banaras Kaur ....Petitioner v. Ranbir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Akhilesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Malkiat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 9. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present revision petition, a grievance has been made that vide impugned order dated 16.2.2010, the Rent Controller committed a grave error by allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and permitting the applicants for being impleaded as respondents No.2 to 9, on claiming themselves to be the co-owners. They rely upon an order passed by this Court in R.F.A. No.325 of 1987. Mr.Malkiat Singh, counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 9 has stated that the tenant was inducted by respondents No. 2 to 9 and under CR No.3366 of 2010 [2] the orders passed by this Court, they have been collecting the rent and, therefore, they are necessary party for adjudication of the controversy. This Court is of the view that petitioner who has instituted an eviction petition is the master of litigation. It is for him to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. In case the tenant-respondent No.1 takes a plea and proves that petitioner is not the landlord but respondents No.2 to 9 are the real landlord, petitioner has to suffer to his peril. Therefore, right course for respondents No.2 to 9 is to institute an eviction petition in their own right and in case such a course is adopted, both the eviction petitions shall be tried simultaneously but separately. In view of this, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 is set aside. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 10, 2010. JUDGE RC