J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority whereby the appeal filed by petitioner Ravi Suri has been dismissed an not maintainable. The landlord filed an ejectment application on July 16, 1980 against their tenants in which Ravi Suri was also impleaded as respondent No. 4. Later on eviction order was passed on the basis of compromise on July 26, 1982. The petitioner Ravi Suri moved an application before the Rent Controller under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the said ejectment order which is still pending. According to the averments made therein, his mother was in occupation of the demised premises in her own right and therefore no evidence order could be passed against her. Similarly, Ravi Suri also filed an appeal against the eviction order dated July 26, 1982, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the same was not maintainable as he does not claim to be the tenant or sub-tenant and attributes the occupation to his mother in her own right.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he was made a party to the ejectment application, he was entitled to file the appeal against the eviction order passed therein. According to the learned counsel, he is the person aggrieved, and therefore, the appeal was maintainable. In support of this contention, he referred to Amar Nath v. Smt. Surinder Kaur and others, 1964 Punjab Law Reporter 76. He also submitted that it was not material that in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, it is stated that his mother was in occupation of the demised premises in her own right. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the sub-tenant was not a necessary party as such to the proceedings. Moreover, Ravi Suri does not admit himself to the sub-tenant or tenant on the premises in dispute. His specific case is that his mother is in occupation of the demised premises in her own right. That being so, Ravi Suri had no right to maintain the appeal against eviction order.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is no more disputed that the case set up by Ravi Suri Petitioner in his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is that his mother was in occupation of the demised premises in her own right. Thus he does not claim to be the tenant or sub-tenant thereon. That being so, he had no right to file the appeal as he is neither a tenant nor sub-tenant or even in occupation of the demised premises in any other capacity. Thus, there is, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.;