S.N.AGGARWAL,J - (1.) COMMON question of facts and law is involved in both the Civil Revisions i.e. Civil Revision No. 2116 of 2005 titled "Kamla Devi and others v. Surinder Kumar and others" and Civil Revision No. 2160 of 2005 titled "Kamla Devi and others v. Hari Singh and others". For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 2161 of 2005.
(2.) RAM Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the shop in dispute from Vidyawati vide sale deed dated 6.8.1993. The said shop was already in possession of Surinder Kumar (respondent No. 1) son of Inder Singh as a tenant. After the shop in dispute was purchased by Ram Singh and Veer Kinder Singh, tenant Surinder Kumar, respondent No. 1, attorned to them and started making payment of rent. After Surinder Kumar, respondent No. 1, stopped making the payment of rent, said Ram Singh (predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6) and Veer Kinder Singh filed a civil suit for possession and also for recovery of arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.2002 to 31.10.2002. (The East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act was not applicable to Mehta Chowk where the shops were situated). During the pendency of civil suit, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as parties in the said suit for possession and recovery. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 9.3.2005. It appears that Ram Singh died during the proceedings and, therefore, aggrieved by order dated 9.3.2005, the present petition was filed by the legal heirs of Ram Singh and Veer Kinder Singh. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that they have filed a suit for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who claimed to be the owners of the shop in dispute have no right to become parties in this suit for possession and particularly when these respondents have filed a separate suit for declaration of their title.
(3.) ON the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they are the necessary parties in the suit for possession.;