IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7039 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Sunehri Devi .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Chhoti and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Ms. Maninder Preet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha whereby application moved by respondent No. 1 under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed. The brief facts of the present case are that eviction petition was filed by respondent No. 2 – Vijay Bhatti before the learned Rent Controller against the petitioner herein. In the eviction petition, respondent No. 1 herein moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 and under Section 151 CPC contending therein that she has purchased property in dispute during the pendency of the case from the landlord – respondent No. 2 herein. Application was allowed by the impugned order. Undisputedly property was purchased by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 – plaintiff before the trial Court during the pendency of the case. By allowing the application, learned trial Court has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error. However, C.R. No. 7039 of 2010 2 the apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by allowing the application trial Court has accepted Smt. Chhoti as landlord/owner is misconceived. If relationship of landlord – tenant is disputed before the trial Court then the same question shall be gone into by learned trial Court. Respondent No. 1 can be said having purchased only those rights of Vijay Bhatti which he was having. Petition is devoid of merits, hence is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 27.10.2010 JUDGE reena