CR No.4509 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4509 of 2006 Date of decision: 03.11.2008 Shrimati Parmeshwari Devi etc. ....Petitioners v. Shri Kuldip and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ... Present:- Shri B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Shri Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. ... Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.( Oral) Respondents had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. Counsel for the parties have agreed that for determination of the core issue and the controversy only a question of law has arisen `whether in a petition filed by the landlord, by invoking Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, another person can claim himself to be a landlord qua the same tenant or not?. This legal issue is to be decided by the Court in 13 connected revision petitions. Counsel state that for deciding the revision petitions, facts from Civil Revision No.4048 of 2006 `Smt.Parmeshwari Devi etc. v. CR No.4509 of 2006 [2] Shri Jiwan Lal and others' can be taken for facility of reference. Counsel for the parties stated in agreement that facts of each case need not to be mentioned and their contentions noticed in one case will be the same in other cases. Therefore, they have submitted that taking facts of one case, ratio of law shall apply to other cases. In view of this, this revision petition is allowed in the same terms as in Civil Revision No.4048 of 2006 and the contentions raised by counsel for the parties noticed therein, analysis thereto and the final conclusion as per agreement of the counsel stand transposed in this case. Orders passed in Civil Revision No.4048 of 2006, be read as part of this order. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge 03.11.2008 RC