Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008 Date of decision 07.01.2009 Pawan Kumar .....Appellant versus Jai Singh and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jasvir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. K. Kannan, J. 1. The revision petition is directed against the order of dismissal of application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that if his right stood independently of the respondent already on record, the petitioner before the Rent Controller who is the landlord, who is the master of his own proceedings will secure such right as it is possible. The Rent Controller has also observed that if an ejectment order is issued and is put in execution and if the third party applicant is in possession he could cause suitable obstruction at the time of execution. The Rent Controller has also observed that the applicant had already filed a civil suit wherein order of status quo had been passed in his favour. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the documents which he had filed before the Rent Controller namely of a compromise proceeding in a civil suit where it was shown that the applicant's father Sumer Singh was in possession of the property as a tenant and that in yet another document it Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008 -2- was seen that M/s Tayal Tractors had given a letter of surrender to heirs of Sumer Singh which included the applicant as well, with the tenancy rights in the property. The contention of the counsel is that these documents clearly establish that the property was only in the possession of the applicant and the action for eviction against persons who were not in possession of the property was a method of securing somehow forcible eviction of the person in actual possession of property. 3. In an application for impleadment the relevant issue would be whether the presence of anyone party would be vital for adjudication sought in the petition. Third party who claims an independent right of tenancy and who makes no common ground with the parties already in record cannot come in and seek for any adjudication. It will not advance the cause of justice for either party. Indeed it will obfuscate the issues that would fall for consideration. The applicants would have independent remedies which indeed the applicant has already availed by instituting the civil suit. 4. The decision of the Rent Controller is proper and there is no justification for intervention. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 07.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL