J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated May 19, 1988, whereby the application filed by the petitioner Krishan Chand under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., has been dismissed.
(2.) THE landlord filed an ejectment application on November 3, 1982, against Sohan Lal and others. Petitioner Krishan Chand was one of the respondents. He was shown as respondent No. 4. On July 30, 1983, respondents 2 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte as they had refused to accept the service. They were also served by affixation. However, later on respondents 2 to 11 were given up by the landlord as they were not necessary parties and were not residing in the demised premises. The ejectment application was thus being contested on behalf of Sohan Lal respondent. Now Krishan Chand filed the present application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading him as a party to the ejectment application. This was contested on behalf of the landlord and the Rent Controller dismissed the same with the following observations : "In this case, admittedly applicant was son of deceased tenant Gulla Mal. But it seems that he has given up his tenancy right in the demised premises wilfully in favour of his brother Sohan Lal. Now, it seems that he wants to help his brother by prolonging the matter with a view to harass the petitioners." Moreover, it is not necessary that Krishan Chand should also be impleaded as respondent in this case. The interest of Sohan Lal and Krishan Chand is same and this petition can be decided finally and effectually even in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he being one of the heirs of the deceased tenant was entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The view taken by the Rent Controller in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petitioner Krishan Chand was impleaded as respondent and when he refused to accept the service, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Subsequently, his name was deleted and now he cannot come forward and say that he be impleaded as a party. Since he was no more in occupation of the demised premises, the application has been filed with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings which are already pending for the last more than seven years. He never came forward to contest the petition for two years before his name was deleted on March 4, 1985. Under these circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Costs are assessed at Rs. 500/-.
(3.) SINCE further proceedings were stayed by this Court at the time of motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on August 18, 1989.;