- (1.) Sabha, Haryana has directed this revision petition impugning order dated 27.8.2014 [Annexure P/4], vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment as party respondent, has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad. Since the matter concerns eviction application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973, petitioner-applicant under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming its status as owner has no right to intervene and seek impleadment. The law laid down in M/s. Aliji Momonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and others, 1997 1 SLJ 113[S.C.], cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no help to the petitioner because it is not a party without whose presence effective and complete adjudication of the matter in dispute is not possible. Rather, the application in the eviction proceedings would complicate the matter as the Rent Controller is not to decide the question of title and ownership, for which separate remedy is available to the petitioner-applicant.
(2.) In the well written order, which is impugned in this petition, learned Rent Controller while declining the request of the petitioner has rightly observed as under:- "After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, admittedly, it is clear in this case that applicant is claiming himself as owner of the premises in question. It is further clear that as and when there is question of title, a separate suit is maintainable. It is also clear that as per Rent Act, landlord is not required to be owner of the property. It is further clear that rent agreement was also executed between the petitioner and respondent. It is further clear that since 1979, the respondent is tenant of the petitioner. It is settled law that if any point of title is raised, a separate suit is maintainable..." Thus, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed in limine.;