CHAMAN LAL Vs. RIKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition is directed against the orders of the appellate authority dismissing the application of the petitioner landlords for eviction of the respondent Mela Ram alleged tenant and Rikhi Ram, the alleged subtenant. The facts of the case in short are that an eviction petition was filed by the petitioner-landlords, Charnan Lal and, Nand Lal the two brothers, on the ground that Mela Ram, respondent No. 1 was liable to be evicted from the demised premises as he had sublet the demised premises to Rikhi Ram. Mela Ram took the stand that be never remained in possession of the demised premises and that the same were in possession of one Sat Pal, son of Rikhi Ram as a tenant Rikhi Ram denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Mela Ram at any point of time. It was further averred by Rikhi Ram that Mela Ram never sublet the demised premises to him. On these premises, the application for eviction was fought before the Rent Controller. In order to prove whether Mela Ram was tenant and Rikhi Ram was sub-tenant, the petitioner-landlords produced two witnesses besides Chaman Lal steppeed into the witness box Documentary evidence in the shape of voters' list evidencing the occupation of the demised premises by Mela Ram was produced or the record of the case. The Rent Controller placed reliance upon the oral and documentary evidence for arriving at the conclusion that Mela Ram was tenant and that he had sublet the premises to Rikhi Ram and, therefore, Mela Ram was liable to be evicted The stand of the respondents that Sat Pal was tenant and that they are in possession of the receipts executed by the petitioner-landlords in their favour was negatived by the Rent Controller by holding the receipts Exhibits R. 1 and R. 2 as forged ones by recording the following finding :

(2.) BEFORE this Court the petitioners' counsel has vehemently argued that there was nothing wrong with the statement of the landlord who has on unambiguous terms stated that Mela Ram was tenant of the landlord and that Rikhi Ram was sub-tenant. He has further argued that the statement of the landlord on oath was duly supported by two witnesses coupled with the voters' list. On the other band, the counsel for the respondent Rikhi Ram, the alleged sub-tenant, has with equal force argued that the voters' list is prepared without properly verifying the actual state of affairs and that the bald statement of the petitioners cannot be believed without there being documentary evidence in the shapa of execution of the alleged rent note or the rent receipts to prove the tenancy of Mela Ram and once Mela Ram is not proved to be the tenant, Rikhi Ram cannot be ordered to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting

(3.) HAVING given may thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the considered view that the two receipts having been allegedly brought on the record; of the case to prove the tenancy of Sat Pal they cannot be skipped over by the court, but in order to appreciate he genuineness or the forgery of the two receipts, the presence of Sat Pal as a party before the Rent Controller is necessary. Once the plea of she respondent before the Rent Controller had been taken in the two written statements-one filed by Mela Ram, the alleged tenant, and the other filed by Rikni Ram, the alleged sub-tenant, the landlords or the alleged tenant or the sub-tenant or the sub-tenant should have moved an application for impleating Sat Pal as a party. This having not been done, such a course could be adopted by the court itself. The letter and spirit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to order the impleading of a party in a proceeding whose presence in the opinion of the court is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. This being the position in law, I order that Sat Pal be impleaded in order to determine all the questions in controversy. ,