- (1.) A petition seeking eviction of Joginder Singh Virdi and another(petitioners herein) was filed by Tarlochan Singh etc., petitioners in the revision petition before the Rent Controller at Chandigarh. In the said petition the tenants making an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had claimed that they were neither in possession of the premises nor were tenants and thus relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The Rent Controller, instead was requested for impleadment of Dr. Paramjit Kaur as a respondent averring that she alone was residing in the demised premises as a tenant. Finding no merit in this application, the same was dismissed vide impugned order of 21.7.2014 (Annexure P-7) by Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
(2.) Citing Gokal Chand and others (plaintiffs) Versus Puran and others, 1978 80 PunLR 403, Dr.A.K. Roy Versus J.C. Roy Choudhury and another, 1982 AIR(Cal) 8 and Harbans Singh and others Versus E.R. Srinivasan and another, 1979 AIR(Del) 171 it is claimed that petitioners are neither tenants nor in possession and only applicant Dr. Paramjit Kaur is the tenant in possession and that she is the real tenant to be added as a party in the petition.
(3.) A perusal of the eviction petition (Annexure P1) reveals that claim of the landlords is based on contract of tenancy with Jogender Singh Virdi(petitioner No.1 herein.). Reference has also been made therein to rent agreement dated 5.4.2000. Merely because petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 marriage between Dr. Sukhpal Singh Virdi son of tenant Joginder Singh Virdi with Dr. Paramjit Kaur had resulted in a decree of divorce, is not a ground to implead said Dr. Paramjit Kaur in the petition. There is neither any document nor any material even to prima-facie show that there existed any relationship of landlords and tenant between the landlords and Dr.Paramjit Kaur. To suffer repetition, rent note was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the landlords. Tenant Joginder Singh Virdi (petitioner herein) cannot question the eviction petition filed against him and his son merely because tenant claims that possession of the premises was allegedly handed over by them to Dr. Paramjit Kaur.;