JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition has been maintained by petitionerland-lady (hereinafter referred as ''land-lady) against the order passed by learned Rent Controller (1), Shimla, whereby application filed by respondent No.2-Jatinder Choudhary under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed and he was ordered to be impleaded as a partyrespondent No.2 in the rent petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that rent petition was filed by land-lady against respondent No.1-Pardeep Kumar (tenant) seeking his eviction on the ground that the premises in question i.e. Shop No.3 in Second Floor known as "Inder Palace", Sanjauli, Shimla, is bonafidely required by her for her own use and occupation, as she wants to run private Dental Clinic in the said premises, which is insufficient to run the Clinic. 3. Reply to the application was filed, wherein nonapplicant/petitioner (Smt. Deepa Singha) had taken a specific stand in the preliminary submissions that the application was misconceived and not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. She had also stated that the application was filed in collusion with the respondent to defeat the legal right of the nonapplicant/petitioner and the application was filed with malafide intention in order to unnecessarily help the respondent for delaying the decision of the rent petition and the same requires dismissal with exemplary costs. 4. Learned Court below had passed the following order, para No.9 of which is reproduced as under :- "Thus considering all these facts, it is held that applicant Jitender Chauhan being the brother of the respondent and also co-tenant in the premises in question is necessary party in the present petition without whom no effective and executable order can be passed. Hence for proper adjudication of the issue in the eviction petition, the present application is considered and allowed whereby Jitender Chauhan is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in this case. Application stands disposed of. Be tagged with the file." 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the case file. 6. Hence for proper adjudication of the issue in the eviction petition, the present application is considered and allowed whereby Jitender Chauhan is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in this case. Application stands disposed of. Be tagged with the file." 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the case file. 6. At this stage, this Court finds that as it has come in evidence, in the statement of the land-lady, that two cheques were given by respondent No.2 and also it has come in the statement of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is also running the shop in question along with his brother, respondent No.1, and it is also clear from the record that respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 are having joint business and the case of the respondent No.2 is that respondent No.1 by concealing the facts entered into an agreement with the original landlord, who was the grandfather of the land-lady. In these circumstances, this Court finds that impleading respondent No.2 in the rent petition is in accordance with law. However, the findings recorded by learned Court below in para-9 that respondent No.2 is a tenant are required to be set aside. As these findings have been recorded by learned Court below without there being anything on record and are perverse. However, to meet the ends of justice, the impleadment of respondent No.2 is not required to be interfered with. 7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed and the order impleading respondent No.2 as party-respondent No.2 in the rent petition is affirmed. However, the findings recorded by learned Court below in para No.9 of the order with respect to the status of respondent No.2, as a tenant are set aside being perverse. 8. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before learned Court below on 28th December, 2019. The Registry is directed to send down the record forthwith.