Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 381 (HP)

PUSHPA RANI v. GIAN CHAND

2005-10-07

V.M.JAIN

body2005
JUDGEMENT V.M. Jain, J.: This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urba Rent Control Act, 1987 (here-in-after referred to as the 1987 Act) has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by Parkash Chand applicant for being impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord against Gian Chand tenant, was allowed and applicant Parkash Chand was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord and the landlord was directed to suitably amend the petition. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that Smt. Pushpa Rani (landlord) field a petition under Section 14 of the 1987 Act against Gian Chand tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised permises various grounds. The petition was contested by Gian Chand tenant by filing a reply. Subsequently, Gian Chand tenant amended the reply with the permission of the Court The landlord filed rejoinder to the reply by the tenant. The case was at the stage of the evidence of the respondent-tenant, namely. Gian Chand, on the additional issues which were framed after the amendment of the reply, when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by Parkash Chand applicant, for being impleaded as a respondent in the aforesaid ejectment petitions filed by the landlord. The said application was contested by the landlord. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 31.7.2004, allowed and said application of Parkash Chand applicant and ordered that he be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord and the landlord was directed to suitably amend the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against this order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the present revision petition in this Court under Section 24(5) of the 1987 Act. 3. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondents and the records were also requisitioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 4. 3. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondents and the records were also requisitioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, namely, Parkash Chand (added respondent in the ejectment petition), at the outset, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present revision petition in this Court. It was submitted that under Section 24 of the 1987 Act any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller could file an appeal to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction, within 15 days from the date of the order. It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 24(1) (b) of the 1987 Act, the impugned order dated 31.7 2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller was appealable before the appellate authority and as such the present revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24(5) of the 1987 Act was not maintainable in this Court. Reliance in the regard was placed on the law laid down by this Court in the case Som Nath v. Sewa Ram, 1985 Shimla Law Cases 167 and the case Smt. Sudarshna Devi Sood Vs. Mis Super Sanitation and others, bearing Cr. No. 320 of 2000, decided on 31.8.2001. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Rent Controller was not appealable before the Appellate authority, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the following cases: (8) Mrs. Balbir Kochhar and others vs. S.V. Bhandari and others, 1989 Simla Law Journal 494; (9) Shakuntla Devi (Smt.) Vs. Santosh (Smt.) & Ors., 2002(1) Current Law Journal 338; (10) Mani Ram vs. Smt. Sudesh Kumari, 2002(3) Shimla Law Cases 58, equivalent to 2003(1) Shimla Law Journal 831. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties end perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised before me by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and that the present revision petition filed by the landlord, against the order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, is] maintainable in this Court. 7. The present State of Himachal Pradesh consists of two parts. 7. The present State of Himachal Pradesh consists of two parts. One part is commonly known as old Himachal while the other part is commonly known as the new Himachal. Old Himachal is the one which was in existence prior to the year 1966 when a vast area, which was earlier part of the State of Punjab, was merged with the State of Himachal Pradesh, at the time when the State of Haryana was created, out of Punjab State, at the time of Re-organization of States. The present case pertains to the New Himachal inasmuch, the demised premises is situated in Shimla, which was part of the State of Punjab till 1966. 8. In the erstwhile State of Punjab, an Act called the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, (hereinafter called 1947 Act) was enacted. Later on, an Act known as East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called 1949 Act) was enacted in the State of Punjab Exercising powers under Section 15(l)(a) of the 1347 Act, the Governor of Punjab had issued the following notification dated 14th April, 1947:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (aa) of clause (1) of Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to confer on all District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab in respect of the urban area in their respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of the Appellate Authorities for the purpose of the said Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the said Act." 9. Subsequently, as referred to above, the 1949 Act was enacted in the State of Punjab. The provisions of the said 1949 Act were made applicable to the then State of Himachal Pradesh (which area is now known as Old Himachal). Subsequently, as referred to above, the 1949 Act was enacted in the State of Punjab. The provisions of the said 1949 Act were made applicable to the then State of Himachal Pradesh (which area is now known as Old Himachal). Thereafter, vide notification dated 15.3.1950, the Government; of Himachal Pradesh had issued the following notification: "In exercise of .he powers conferred by sub clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, III of 1949, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, and in suppression of this Administration Notification No.A/5/92/48-ll, dated the 24the February, 1949, all the District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh are hereby invested in respect of the Urban areas in their respective existing jurisdictions with the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of the said Act with regard to orders made by the Rent Controllers under Section 4,10,12 and 13 of the said Act. 10. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the provisions of the 1949 Act were made applicable to the Old Himachal" any by virtue of Notification dated 15.3.1CJ0 in the State of Himachal Pradesh, all the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh were invested with the powers of Appellate authorities for the purpose of 1949 Act, with regard to the orders made by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1949 Act. 11.So far as the are? comprised in new Himachal’ are concerned, the laws as applicable in the erstwhile. State of Punjab as on 1.11.1966 would be applicable till new laws were enacted, since the area comprised in new Himachal was carved out from the erstwhile State of Punjab and was merged with the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.11.1966. Thus, for the areas comprised in new Himachal the provisions of the East Punjab, Urban Restriction Act, 1949 were already applicable and the notification which was issued in respect of the 1947 Act, conferring powers of Appellate Authorities on all the District and Sessions Judge, with regard to orders made by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of 1947 Act, was already applicable. 12.From a perusal of above it would be clear that in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh, as it existed after the merger of the area, which was previously part of the erstwhile State of Punjab, with effect from 1.11.1996, the provisions of the 1949 Act were applicable and by virtue of the notifications issued by the Punjab Government, exercising the powers under 1947 Act and also by the State for Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers under 1949 Act, all the District and Sessions Judges were conferred invested with the powers of Appellate Authorities with regard to the orders made by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act, which were pari materia. 13. Subsequently, the State of Himachal Pradesh enacted its own Rent Act, known as Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, (hereinafter called 1971 Act) in respect of the entire area comprising the State of Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently, the present Rent Act, known as Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 was enacted superseding the 1971 Act. The provisions of Sections 4,11,13 and 14 of the 1971 Act and 1987 Act, as enacted in the State of Himachal Pradesh, are part materia to the provisions of Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and the 1949 Act, as enacted in the State of Punjab. 14. It is the admitted case of the parties before me that no separate notification conferring powers of Appellate Authorities upon the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government after the coming into force of the 1971 Act and the 1987 Act. Thus, we have to fall back upon the 1947 notification, which was issued by the Governor of Punjab under the 1947 notification, which was issued by the Governor of Punjab under the 1947 Act (for the new Himachal) and the 1950 notification, which was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government under the 1949 Act (for the old Himachal) vide which all the District and Sessions Judges were conferred/invested with the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purposes of aforesaid Acts, with regard to the orders made by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4, 10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act, respectively. 15. 15. It is not doubt true that the 1947 Act, 1949 Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) and 1971 Act, referred to above, have since been repealed and as at present the Rent Act which is applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh is the 1937 Act. However, by virtue of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) and 1971 Act having been repealed, the notification which were issued by the Governor of Punjab in respect of 1947 Act and by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in respect of the 1949 Act, as steady reproduced above, would still be applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of the provisions of Section 23 of the HP. General Clauses Act, 1968, which reads as under- "23. Continuation of orders etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted:- Where any Himachal Pradesh Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the repealed Act, shall, so far as it is not consistent with the provisions re-enacted continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification order, scheme, rule, form, or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted." 16. Thus, it would be clear that the notification which were issued under the 1947 Act and 1949 were still applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh would exercise the jurisdiction to act as Appellate Authorities by virtue of these notifications against specific orders passed by the Rent Controllers, as decided in these notifications. 17. Once it is found that the notification which were issued under the 1947 Act and 1949 Act were still applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in my opinion, it would be clear that it is only by virtue of these notifications that the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh exercised the powers of Appellate Authorities under the Rent Acts, against the orders passed by the Rent Controllers. That being so, in my opinion, it would also be clear that by virtue of these notifications, the District and Sessions Judges had been invested/conferred with the powers of Appellate Authorities only against the orders passed by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act. That being the position, in my opinion, the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh have the jurisdiction to act as Appellate Authorities under the 1971 Act and 1987 Act, only in respect of the orders which have been passed by the Rent Controllers under Sections, 4, 11, 13 and 14 of the 1971 Act and 1987 (which are equivalent to Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act). 18. In view of the above, in my opinion, it would be clear that the District and Sessions Judge in the State of Himachal Pradesh can exercise powers of Appellate Authorities under the 1971 Act and 1987 Act only in respect of the orders which have been passed by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4, 11, 13 and 14 of the 1971 Act and 1987 Act and no other order passed by the Rent Controllers would be appealable before the District and Sessions judge, as Appellate Authorities, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 19. In 1989 Shimla Law Journal 494 (supra), the prayer of the landlords for production of certain documents was rejected by the Rent Controller.- Aggrieved against the same, the landlords filed revision petition in this Court. The respondents-tenants raised an objection about the maintainability of the revision petition of this Court against the aforesaid order passed by the Rent Controller, on the ground that the landlords could have gone in appeal before the Appellate Authority and the revision petition in this Court was not maintainable. It was found by this Court that the notification attributable to Section 24(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, which was applicable to this case, was the one, which was initially issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the 1949 Act. It was found by this Court that the notification attributable to Section 24(1)(a) of the 1987 Act, which was applicable to this case, was the one, which was initially issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the 1949 Act. After noticing that as per the said notification the powers of appellate authorities we to be exercised by all the District and Sessions Judges with regard to the orders made by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1949 Act, it was held by this Court that the order which was passed by the Rent Controllers and which was under challenge in the revisions petition, was not of the nature contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of the 1949 Act. It was further held that since the said order passed by the Rent Controllers could not be assailed by the landlords in an appeal, the revision petition filed by the landlords was maintainable. The authority Som Nath Vs. Sewa Ram, ILR 1985 HP 133 (supra), which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the said revision petition, was distinguished. 20. The law laid down by this Court in 1989 S.L.J. 494 (supra) was relied upon by this Court in 2002 (I) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 338 (supra) and it was held that an appeal was maintainable only against an order passed under Section 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the 1949 Act, keeping in view the notifications vesting/conferring the powers of appellate Authorities upon the District and Sessions Judges only in respect of the orders passed by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1949 Act, which was corresponding to Sections 4,11,13 and 14 of the 1987 Act. Reliance was also placed on various judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in this regard. The law laid down in 2002(1) Cur. L.J. (HP) 338 was again followed by this Court in 2002(3) Shimla Law Cases 58 (supra), equivalent to 2003(1) Shimla Law Journal 831 (supra) and it was held that an appeal would lie to the appellate authority only against an order passed by a Rent Controller under Sections 4,11,13 and 14 of the 1987 Act, and against no other order. 21. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case Kanwar Pritam Singh vs. Sh. 21. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case Kanwar Pritam Singh vs. Sh. Pritam Singh Patpalia, 1977 Rent Law Reporter, 153 (I) (H.P.) and it was held that the notification issued under Section 15 of the 1949 Act conferred on the District and Sessions Judges the powers of Appellate Authority for the purposes of that Act, with regard to the orders made by Rent Controllers under Section 13(as also under Sections 4,10,12) of the 1949 Act. It was also held that by reason of the H.P. General Clauses Act, the said notification must be deemed to be valid for the 1971 Act and that a District and Sessions Judge in the State of Himachal Pradesh is vested with appellate jurisdiction under 1971 Act also. It was further held that there was no substantial difference between powers exercised by the Rent Controllers under Section 13 of the 1949 Act and Section 14 of the 1971 Act and as such t .are is no reason why the notification should not operate as appointing District and Sessions Judges in Himachal Pradesh as Appellate Authorities only, with regard to the said orders made by the Rent Controllers under the provisions of 1971 Act. 22. So far as the two authorities relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 are concerned, in my opinion, the law laid down in the said Authorities would have no application to the facts of the present case. In 1985 Shimla Law Cases 167 (supra) it was only noticed that under Sections 21(l)(a) of the 1971 Act the State Government is competent to confer powers of Appellate Authorities on such officers and Authorities as it may think fit whereas sub clause (b) provides the filing of an appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller. Thus, it was concluded that an order passed by the Rent Controller is appealable before the Appellate Authority appointed by the State Government. Thus, it was concluded that an order passed by the Rent Controller is appealable before the Appellate Authority appointed by the State Government. Without considering the notifications, under which the District and Sessions Judges were conferred the powers of Appellate Authorities, it was only noticed that it had not been disputed that all the District Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh have been conferred the powers of the Appellate Authorities for the purpose of 1971 Act by the State Government under Section 21 of the said Act and as such the order under challenge before this Court by way of revision petition was certainly appealable and the appeal lay before the Appellate Authority and that the revision petition was not maintainable. However, in my opinion, the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid authority would have no application to the facts of the present case, since the notifications vide which the powers of Appellate Authorities were conferred upon the District and Sessions Judges, were not considered and the case was decided per incuriam, inasmuch as, in the reported case, it was not disputed that all the District Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh were conferred the powers of Appellate Authorities under the 1971 Act. Since the notification vide which the powers of the Appellate Authorities were conferred/invested on the District and Sessions Judges it was clearly specified that the District and Sessions Judge could exercise the powers of Appellate Authorities only in respect of the orders passed by the Rent Controller under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 which fact was not brought to the notice of this Court an thus was not considered by this Court while deciding the said petition, in my opinion, it could certainly be said that the said petition was decided per incuriam and the law laid down in the said authority would have no application to the present case. 23. Similarly, in Smt. Sudarshna Devi Soods case (supra), this Court was considering the provisions of Section 24(l) of the 1987 Act. 23. Similarly, in Smt. Sudarshna Devi Soods case (supra), this Court was considering the provisions of Section 24(l) of the 1987 Act. It was noticed that under Section 24(l)(b) of the 1987 Act there was a reference to an order and not a final order and as such the order rejecting an application to summon a person as a witness could be said to be an order within the meaning of clause (b) to sub-section (I) of Section 24 of the 1987 Act and hence it was appealable before the Appellate Authority. However, in my opinion, the law laid down in this Authority would also have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, this judgment was also passed by this Court without noticing the notifications under which the powers of Appellate Authorities were conferred upon the District and Sessions Judge only in respect of the orders passed by the Rent Controllers under Sections 4,10,12 and 13 of the 1947 Act and 1949 Act, which are equivalent to Sections 4,11,13 and 14 of the 1971 Act and 1987 Act, enacted in the State of Himachal Pradesh. That being so, in my opinion, the judgment passed in Smt. Sudarshna Devi Soods case (supra) was also decided per incuriam and would have no application to the present case. 24. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, it would be clear that in the present case the order dated 31.7.2004 by the Rent Controller was not. appealable to the Appellate Authority, inasmuch as, it was admittedly not an order passed by the Rent Controller under Sections 4,11,13 and 14 of the 1987 Act. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is hereby rejected. 25. Coming on merits, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord submitted before me that no ca;=e was made out for allowing Parkash Chand applicant to be impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord Gian Chand tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised premises. It was submitted that the petitioner landlord had sought the ejectment of Gian Chand tenant from the demise premises on various grounds including non-payment of rent and subletting etc. It was submitted that the petitioner landlord had sought the ejectment of Gian Chand tenant from the demise premises on various grounds including non-payment of rent and subletting etc. In the amended written statement Gian Chand tenant had taken up the plea that he was not the tenant but the Joint Hindu Family was the tenant of the demised premises. It was submitted that applicant Parkash Chand could not be impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord, even if the case of the landlord was that Gian Chand, tenant had sublet the premises to Parkash Chand, considering that sub tenant is not a necessary party. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case Balvant N.Viswamitra and others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (deceased by L. Rs) and others, AIR 2004 SC 4377. It was further submitted that even otherwise Parkash Chand applicant could not be impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition merely because the claims himself to be a member of the alleged Joint Hindu Family. 26. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before me that the learned Rent Controller had rightly allowed the application filed by Parkash Chand applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and had rightly impleaded Parkash Chand applicant as a respondent in the ejectment petition, since Parkash Chand applicant was in possession of the suit property. 27. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is considerable force in the submission made before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. I am further of the opinion that the present revision petition has to be allowed, order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller has to be set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Parkash Chand applicant for being impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition, has to be dismissed. 28. As referred to above, Smt. Pushpa Rani landlord had filed the ejectment petition under Section 14 of the 1987 Act against Gian Chand tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised on various grounds, including the ground of non payment of rent and having sub let the premises in favour of his brother Parkash Chand. 28. As referred to above, Smt. Pushpa Rani landlord had filed the ejectment petition under Section 14 of the 1987 Act against Gian Chand tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised on various grounds, including the ground of non payment of rent and having sub let the premises in favour of his brother Parkash Chand. Another ground taken in the ejectment petition was that the respondent tenant had acquired vacant possession of residential accommodation which was reasonably sufficient and much more commodious than the tenanted accommodation and has shifted in the said premises alongwith his family and as such the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on this ground as well. Initially, Gian Chand tenant in the written reply denied that he was in the arrears or rent or that he has shifted to some other premises with his family or that he had sub let the premises in question to his brother Parkash Chand. It was also denied that the demised premises was occupied by the alleged sub tenant. Subsequently, the respondent tenant amended the written reply and in the said reply it was alleged that the demised premises were taken on rent by Malkiat Chand, father of the respondent tenant, for himself and for the respondent and both were paying the rent to the petitioner and the alleged sub tenant, namely, Parkash Chand was residing there since the premises had been taken on lease, being a member of the family of the respondent and his father Malkiat Chand who form a joint and undivided Hindu Family. It was alleged that since the landlord had failed to implead Malkiat Cnand as a party, the petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was further alleged that the petition was also bad for non joinder of .the alleged sub tenant, namely, Parkash Chand who was also a necessary party to the present petition. 29. It was alleged that since the landlord had failed to implead Malkiat Cnand as a party, the petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was further alleged that the petition was also bad for non joinder of .the alleged sub tenant, namely, Parkash Chand who was also a necessary party to the present petition. 29. After the respondent tenant, namely, Gian Chand had filed the aforesaid amended reply to the ejectment petition, applicant Parkash Chand filed the application dated 5.7.2002 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Parkash Chand as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition filed by Smt. Pushpa Rani against Gian Chand, taking up the plea that the application was the real brother of the respondent tenant and was residing in the demised premises since the year 1977 as a tenant alongwith others and no as a sub tenant and that the petitioner landlord had intentionally not impleaded the applicant as respondent in the ejectment petition. It was accordingly prayed that the applicant be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition. The said application was contested by the petitioner-landlord by filing a reply, alleging therein that the applicant was not a necessary party and no case was made out for impleading him as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controllers allowed the aforesaid application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded Parkash Chand applicant as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition. 30. In AIR 2004 SC 4377 (supra) it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a sub tenant was not a proper or necessary party in a petition for ejectment filed by the landlord against the tenant, since there was no privity of contract between the landlord and the alleged sub tenant. Reference was made to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases Udit Narayanm Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, M/s Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Frantroze Taraporewala and Ors., AIR 1953 SC 73 and Rupchand Gupta v. Raghvanshi (Pvt.) Ltd. and another, AIR 1964 SC 1889. 31. Reference was made to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases Udit Narayanm Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, M/s Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Frantroze Taraporewala and Ors., AIR 1953 SC 73 and Rupchand Gupta v. Raghvanshi (Pvt.) Ltd. and another, AIR 1964 SC 1889. 31. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above mentioned authorities, in my opinion, applicant Parkash (Parkash Chand) could not be considered to be a necessary party in the ejectment petition filed by Smt. Pushpa Rani landlord against Gian Chand tenant, even if according to Smt. Pushpa Rani, landlord, Gian Chand tenant had sub let the premises to his brother Parkash Chand. Furthermore, in case Parkash Chand applicant is claiming himself to be a direct tenant Smt, Pushpa Chand applicant is claiming himself to be a direct tenant under Smt. Puspha Rani landlord, against Gian Chand tenant. In my opinion, the learned Rent Controller had erred in law in ordering Parkash Chand applicant to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the aforesaid ejectment petition filed by Smt. Pushpa Rani landlord against Gian Chand tenant. 32. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, order dated 5.7.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Parkash Chand applicant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are ordered to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 17.11.2005 for further proceedings in accordance with law.