- (1.) The appellants have preferred this intra court appeal against the impugned order dated 7th February, 2012, passed by the Single Bench, whereby the writ petition of the petitioners against the order dated 4th January, 2012, passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal rejecting their application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., has been dismissed.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are also doing their business on the rented premise, but they were not impleaded as party, despite the fact that an objection was taken by non-applicant/tenant that the appellants are also doing business on the rented premise. Issue no. 3 was also framed, which was decided against the tenant and ultimately, possession certificate was issued in favour of the landlord. Thereafter, appellants moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as party in an appeal against decree of eviction passed by Rent Tribunal, before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 4th January, 2012. The said order was impugned in the writ petition, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 7th February, 2012.
(3.) In this case, a specific issue no.3 was framed by the Rent Tribunal, as to whether Kanhaiya lal and Premnarayan are necessary parties or not The said issue was decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. It is a settled law that the judgment or decree is binding only on parties to the litigation. If appellants are not party to present litigation, this eviction order/decree passed in the case, will not be binding on them. They are always at liberty to agitate about their rights independently, if any, in the competent court, in accordance with law.;