Arun Kumar ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner landlord has challengedan order dated 29/10/1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhiallowing an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead Shree Krishnasangeet Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the mahavidyalaya ) throughsmt. Sarvada Acharya, Principal/superintendent as a party. The petitionerlandlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) against Vishwa Nath Sharma,respondent. Vishwa Nath Sharma filed an application dated 9/04/1994 forleave to defend the eviction petition under Section 25 B (5) of the Act through Smt. Sarvada Acharya acting as attorney on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma. Theaffidavit m support of the said application was also filed by the same Smt. Sarvadaacharya. This application was filed through Shri Inderjit Singh,advocate. Duringthe pendency of the said application for leave to defend, an application underorder I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8th July, 1994 on behalf of the Mahavidyalayathrough Smt. Sarvada Acharya by Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for impleading thesaid Mahavidyalaya as a party. By the impugned order, the said application wasallowed and 15 days time was granted to the newly impleaded party to fileaffidavit seeking leave to defend. The petitioner landlord has challenged the saidorder by way of present petition. ( 2 ) IN the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the case of the applicant isthat the property in dispute was let out to the Mahavidyalaya through Vishwa Mathsharma for residential-cum-commercial purposes in the year 1962 and the Mahavidyalaya is being run in the tenanted premises since then. It is further stated in theapplication that Vishwa Nath Sharma joined Government service in the year 1963. Prior to this, he was the Principal/superintendent of the said Mahavidyalaya. After joining Government service in 1963, Raghbir Saran Acharya was nominatedas Principal/superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya who occupied the said post tillhis death. After the death of Raghbir Saran Acharya in the year 1985, Smt. Sarvadaacharya, his widow was nominated as Principal/ Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya and is working as such since then and is residing in the premises. After joining Government service in 1963, Raghbir Saran Acharya was nominatedas Principal/superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya who occupied the said post tillhis death. After the death of Raghbir Saran Acharya in the year 1985, Smt. Sarvadaacharya, his widow was nominated as Principal/ Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya and is working as such since then and is residing in the premises. Reference has also been made in the application to an alleged agreement dated 2 1/12/1965 entered into between Vishwa Nath Sharma and the then landladyof the property Smt. Krishna Kaur in respect of the tenancy of the entire secondfloor of property A-7, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, i. e. , the property in suit. Thus,according to the applicant, the Mahavidyalaya is the tenant in the property since1962. The premises is meant for the residence of the Principal /superintendent ofthe Mahavidyalaya as well as for running the Mahavidyalaya, i. e. , the premises isfor residential-cum-commercial purposes. ( 3 ) IT must be noticed at this stage that Raghbir Saran Acharya was the father-in-law of Vishwa Nath Sharma while Sarvada Acharya is his mother-in-law. Thepetitioner landlord filed reply to the said application opposing the same. According to the landlord, Vishwa Nath Sharma is the tenant in the premises. There is norelationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner herein and the Mahavidyalaya. It is further stated that the application underorder I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code wasmala fide and was with a view to foist the Mahavidyalaya on the petitionerlandlord as a tenant in place of Vishwa Nath Sharma, the actual tenant in thepremises. ( 4 ) THE crucial question for determination is as to who is the tenant in thepremises. It is the tenant alone who is entitled to be impleaded as a party in theeviction petition. For determining this question, there are a few important factswhich have to be noticed. (i) The application for leave to contest the eviction petition was filed byvishwa Nath Sharma, respondent. In the said application, it isspecifically stated "the respondent is also residing in the tenantedpremises and the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent forresidential-cum- commercial purposes and the tenanted premises arebeing used as such". Thus, Vishwa Nath Sharma admits that he is thetenant in the premises. (ii) The said application was filed on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma bysmt. Sarvada Acharya in the capacity of his attorney through Shriinderjit Singh, Advocate. Thus, Vishwa Nath Sharma admits that he is thetenant in the premises. (ii) The said application was filed on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma bysmt. Sarvada Acharya in the capacity of his attorney through Shriinderjit Singh, Advocate. This application was filed on 9/04/1994. The application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8/07/1994by the same Smt. Sarvada Acharya through the same Counsel Shriinderjit Singh. This application purports to be on behalf of themahavidyalaya. It is claimed that the Mahavidyalaya is the tenant inthe premises. (iii) There is a legal notice dated 21/07/1992, photo copy whereof hasbeen placed on record. The notice is issued by Shri Indeijit Singh,advocate, i. e. , the same Counsel on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharmaaddressed to Shri Kiran Parkash, the petitioner landlord. The first paraof the said notice reads "that my aforesaid client is a lawful tenant ofthe entire second floor. . . . . . ". (iv) Vishwanath Sharma filed a suit for permanent injunction on 14/07/1988 against the previous landlord /owner of the property in suit in thecourt of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. In the said suit, he claimed to be atenant with respect to these very premises under the erstwhile ownerwho was impleaded as defendant. It is further interesting to note thatin the said suit, Vishwa Nath Sharma further pleaded that in thetenancy premises a Sangeet Vidyalaya is being run since 1962. Theplaintiff (Vishwa Nath Sharma) remained as Principal of the saidvidyalaya till 1963 and thereafter he was working as an honoraryprincipal of the said Vidyalaya. One Raghbir Saran Acharya was thecentral Superintendent of the said Vidyalaya and after his death, hisson Gautam and his widow Smt. Sarvada Acharya were looking afterthe affairs of the said Vidyalaya as Superintendent and she wasresiding in the said tenanted premises with the son of the plaintiffnamed Neeraj Sharma. Further in para 2 of the plaint in the said suit,it has been stated that the "the plaintiff mostly visits the said Sangeetvidyalaya daily and sleeps with his son Neeraj Sharma in the tenantedpremises". (v) On 25/05/1988, Vishwa Nath Sharma filed a petition under Section44 of the Act against the then owner of the premises in suit in hiscapacity as tenant for permission to get the premises repaired. In thesaid application also, the first para starts with "that the petitioner istenant under the respondent in the premises No. A-7, Rana Pratapbagh, Delhi. . . (v) On 25/05/1988, Vishwa Nath Sharma filed a petition under Section44 of the Act against the then owner of the premises in suit in hiscapacity as tenant for permission to get the premises repaired. In thesaid application also, the first para starts with "that the petitioner istenant under the respondent in the premises No. A-7, Rana Pratapbagh, Delhi. . . . . . . . ". (vi) The petitioner landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition againstvishwa Nath Sharma under clauses (a), (b), (d), (h) and (j) to proviso tosub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. In the written statement filedby Vishwa Nath Sharma through his Special Attorney Neeraj Sharma (his son) in which also he admitted that "the tenanted premises werelet out to the respondent for residential-cum-commercial purposes. . . . . . . . ". This written statement was again filed through the samecounsel Shri Inderjit Singh. (vii) Apart from this, the petitioner landlord has placed photostat copies oftwo registered sale deeds with respect to the property in suit. The firstsale deed is dated 2/06/1966 executed by Krishna Kaur as vendorin favour of Krishan Lal. The second sale deed is dated 1/04/1987executed by Krishan Lal as vendor in favour of the present petitionerlandlord. In both the sale deeds, Vishwa NathSharma is mentioned asa tenant in the premises along with other tenants whose names arementioned in the sale deeds. ( 5 ) IN the face of all these facts and clear-cut admissions and assertions on thepart of Vishwa Nath Sharma that he is the tenant in the premise, is it possible to saythat Mahavidyalya is the tenant and not Vishwa Nath Sharma? Further questionis can the Mahavidyalaya claim itself to be a tenant in the premises in these facts andparticularly in view of the fact that the Mahavidyalaya s legal entity is nowheredisclosed and, therefore, is not known? The tenant has to be either a natural personor a juristic person. It is nowhere disclosed in the application under Order I Rule10 Civil Procedure Code moved on behalf of Mahavidyalaya as to what is the legal status of themahavidyalaya. Is it a registered society or a partnership firm or a company underthe Companies Act? Without disclosing its legal entity, can the Mahavidyalayaclaim itself to be a tenant? Further can something having no legal entity be a tenant? Is it a registered society or a partnership firm or a company underthe Companies Act? Without disclosing its legal entity, can the Mahavidyalayaclaim itself to be a tenant? Further can something having no legal entity be a tenant? ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel Shri Inderjit Singh has tried to explain away theadmissions on the part of Vishwa Nath Sharma by saying that they were made byhis son and not by Vishwa Nath Sharma himself and, therefore, they are notbinding. This is no explanation at all. Vishwa Nath Sharma has never himselfdisclaimed or disputed these various pleadings. He has acted upon the stand takenby him through his attornies all along. He has enjoyed the stand taken in thepleadings and the legal notice. ( 7 ) IT is also worth mentioning that regarding the status of Vishwa Nathsharma qua the Mahavidyalaya, the stand has been changing. At some places, hehas described himself as Principal of the Mahavidyalaya till 1963. At another place,he has described himself as honorary Principal of the Mahavidyalaya after 1963. Atyet another place, he says, he is honorary Secretary of the Mahavidyalaya. Same istrue about Raghbir Saran Acharya and Sarvada Acharya. Sometimes they arereferred to as Superintendents, sometimes as Principal and so on. This only showsthat the respondents are setting up a false case. The only document sought to berelied upon by the respondents is an alleged agreement dated 21/12/1965between Smt. Krishna Kaur, the erstwhile owner ofthe property and Vishwa Nath Sharma. The alleged agreement is entered into by none else than Vishwa Nathsharma. Prima fade, the agreement does not inspire any credibility and I amunable to pursuade myself to rely on the same. Vishwa Nath Sharma had occasionto file proceedings in Courts including a petition under Section 44 of the Act forcarrying out repairs in the premises. Reference to all these proceedings havealready been made hereinbefore. There is no reference to the alleged agreement inany of the proceedings initiated by Vishwa Nath Sharma qua the tenancy premises. ( 8 ) FROM the above discussion, it appears that the sole object of the respondentis to foist Smt. Sarvada Acharya and the Mahavidyalaya on the petitioner landlordas tenants. In view of getting a Government job, Vishwa Nath Sharma does notseem to have any interest left in the premises and he is trying to help his mother-in-law to retain possession of the premises through this device. In view of getting a Government job, Vishwa Nath Sharma does notseem to have any interest left in the premises and he is trying to help his mother-in-law to retain possession of the premises through this device. It is a trap laid byvishwa Nath Sharma in collusion with Smt. Sarvada Acharya. This Court cannotshut its eyes to such tactics and devices. The application under Order I Rule 10 CPCon behalf of the Mahavidyalaya is totally devoid of any merit and is wholly malafide. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that this petition underarticle 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and this Court will notinterfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under the said provision in a matter of thepresent kind. He cited certain judgments to show the limitations on powers of thehigh Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution ofindia. It is settled proposition of law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of theconstitutiton of India and the power of Superintendence given to the High Courtunder the said provision can be exercised to prevent manifest injustice and sheerabuse of the process of the Court. This is a clear case of abuse of process of the Courtby a litigant on the basis of a totally false and dishonest pleas and documents. ( 9 ) IN the present proceedings, Vishwa Nath Sharma has chosen not to appear. Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya onlywho has been directed to be impleaded as a party by the impugned order of theadditional Rent Controller though before the Additional Rent Controller heappeared by Vishwa Nath Sharma also. Shri Inderjit Singh also relief on variousdocuments, photo copies whereof he has placed on record of this petition. On thebasis of these documents, he has urged that the Mahavidyalaya was functioningfrom the premises in suit and it was so because the Mahavidyalaya was the tenantin the premises. The petitioner landlord has not had any opportunity to counterthese documents because they have been recently placed on record without seekingpermission of this Court and also without supplying copies to the petitionerlandlord. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge of these documents. Thesedocuments in any case need not detain me because they at best would show that themahavidyalaya was being run in the premises. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge of these documents. Thesedocuments in any case need not detain me because they at best would show that themahavidyalaya was being run in the premises. The point in controversy before meis whether the Mahavidyalaya could be said to be a tenant in the premises. Thesedocuments do not help in the matter of reaching this finding. The question whetherthe Mahavidyalaya was being run in the premises or not is not the subject matterof inquiry. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29/10/1994passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi cannot be sustained. The same ishereby set aside. The application on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya under Order IRule 10 Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party in the capacity of a tenant in thepremises is dismissed. This petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. " 2,000. 00.