- (1.) The shop in dispute belonged to one Raisahib Kundan Lal who died in the year 1966. After his death some dispute about his property arose and Shri Charanjeev Bhardwaj, Advocate, was appointed as its receiver. He has filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against one Prem Nath, proprietor M/s Chatter Sein Aggarwal and Sons for his ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent. Jagdish Chander, respondent, claiming himself to be the proprietor of this firm filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 151 Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. stating therein that he was the sole proprietor of M/s Chatter Sein Aggarwal and Sons and that Prem Nath was in fact an employee of the firm who had left service in 1970 and his whereabouts were not known. It was also prayed therein that he be impleaded as a party to the suit. He also made tender of the rent on the same day. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated July 22, 1978 allowed the application.
(2.) Mr. Kang, learned counsel for the Court receiver, has argued that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to allow Jagdish Chander respondent to be impleaded as a party to this case. He has further submitted that Prem Nath, the original respondent, had been paying rent to the Court-receiver earlier and in fact he was the person who was the actual tenant of the shop in dispute.
(3.) Sitting in revision I cannot decide the contentions raised by Mr. Kang in the absence of any evidence. Jagdish Chander respondent claims to be the proprietor of the firm which according to him is the real tenant. These facts will be gone into by the learned Rent Controller and if he ultimately comes to the conclusion that Prem Nath was the original tenant, it follows without saying that he would ignore the tender of rent made by Jagdish Chander respondent No. 2. At this stage only a proper party has been impleaded. The learned Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same cannot be set aside in revision. I would, however, clarify that any observation made by the Rent Controller about Prem Nath being a non-tenant shall not stand in his way at the time when he finally determines the relevant issue. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on November 18, 1978.;