INDERMEET KAUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.03.2012 whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') which was filed at the stage of final arguments had been declined. Contention of the applicant is that he is a necessary and property parties for the controversy in dispute and the impugned judgment declining this prayer has committed an illegality.
(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction has been filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)((b)(j) & (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The original tenant was one N.R. Maini. After his death, the respondent namely Harish Kumar Maini (son of N.R. Maini) became a tenant as all the other legal heirs relinquished their tenancy rights in favour of the respondent; this is specifically averred in para 14 of the eviction petition. Grounds under Section 14 (1)((b)(j) & (k) had been pleaded in the eviction petition. During the progress of the case, written statement was filed by Harish Kumar Maini wherein no dispute was raised qua the right of any other legal representative. It was only at the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of final arguments that the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was sought to be filed. Contention in this application is that Madan Maini (applicant) is also a legal representative of deceased N.R.Maini and his right also has to be protected; he is a necessary party; he cannot be thrown out of the premises without being heard. Needless to state that this application was hotly contested and it was brought to the notice of the Court that this eviction petition is pending since the year 2005 and this application having been filed at the fag end of the trial i.e. in August, 2011 is nothing but one more delaying tactic on the part of the tenant to prolong this litigation. Further contention being that even if one legal heir of the tenant is on record, the law is well settled that other legal heirs are not required to be brought on record. These submissions of the respondent/landlord were noted in the right perspective. Argument of the petitioner that there has been a non-joinder of the other legal representatives of the original tenant is also an argument without merit. The law is well settled; the legal representatives of the deceased tenant succeed as joint tenants and a petition against one legal representative alone is by itself maintainable. This has been upheld by a Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (8) AD 328 Inder Pal Khanna vs. Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi. This argument also does not raise any triable issue. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code pre-supposes a situation that any person who is 'necessary' or 'proper' party is liable to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code; the addition or subtraction of that party must throw light upon the controversy. This is clearly not so in this case. The present applicant who is admittedly the son of N.R.Maini (the original tenant) is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Eviction petition has been filed in August, 2005 wherein in para 14 it has been specifically stated that after the death of N.R. Maini, Harish Maini has attorned to the landlord and he has come his tenant as all other legal heirs of deceased N.R. Maini have relinquished their right in four of Harish Maini. There had in fact been no dispute to this quarrel right up to August, 2011 when the present application was filed by Madan Maini only to prolong the litigation. This is only a dilatory tactic. This is also fortified by the legal position that even if one legal representative of the tenant is on record, it is not necessary that other legal heirs are brought on record.
(3.) THIS petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and wastage of its precious time. Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.;