Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 973 (HP)

Joginder Singh v. Kuldeep Kumar

2019-07-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order so passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla in Eviction Petition No. 82-2 of 15/2014, dated 16.5.2019, titled as Joginder Singh and another Versus Raj Kumar and others, vide which an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the applicants therein namely Kuldeep Kumar and Satish Kumar, has been allowed by the learned Court below. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order prima facie is perverse on account of inconsistency in the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners points out that two separate eviction petitions under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act have been preferred by the landlord against two sets of the tenants, but pertaining to the same building, on the ground that building is in a dilapidated condition. In both these petitions, applications were filed by a party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming to be co-owners of the premises, for being impleaded as a respondent. Whereas, application filed in Eviction Petition No. 82-2 of 15/2014, dated 16.5.2019, titled as Joginder Singh and another Versus Raj Kumar and others, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by a speaking order on 17.5.2018, on the same date, verbatim same application filed by the same applicants, has been allowed in the present case. 4. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated at the Bar that the order which was passed by the learned Rent Controller in the other application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stood dismissed, was assailed before this Court by the applicants by way of CMPMO No.356/2018, titled as Kuldeep Chand and another Versus Joginder Singh and others, but the petition so filed, was withdrawn by the party on 21.5.2019, meaning thereby that the order vide which the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed, has attained finality. 5. On these basis, it has been urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, because the same Court i.e. learned Rent Controller cannot be permitted to pass inconsistent order in similar set of petitions. 6. 5. On these basis, it has been urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, because the same Court i.e. learned Rent Controller cannot be permitted to pass inconsistent order in similar set of petitions. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as record of this and other case, which was called by this Court on 15th July, 2019, there seems to be merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. 7. It has not been disputed before me that whereas in the present case, an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, at the behest of co-owners to be impleaded as party, a similar application, containing the same contents, filed by the same applicants on same cause, was dismissed by the same Court, in another rent petition, filed by the same landlord pertaining to the same building. 8. This Court is of the view that when there were two Eviction Petitions filed by a landlord against two sets of tenants, who were residing in the same building on same and similar grounds and in said proceedings, two separate applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the co-owners, for being impleaded as a party and the averments in applications and the relief prayed for is the same, then by no stretch of imagination, the learned Rent Controller could not have passed two different orders on these applications. 9. The applications could either have been allowed in both the cases or rejected in both the cases. 10. Passing different order by the learned Court below without clarifying in the impugned order passed in the present case as to why this application was being allowed in the teeth of a similar application having been dismissed by the same Court, is not sustainable in law. 11. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order i.e. the order dated 16.5.2018, passed by the learned Rent Controller by further directing the learned Rent Controller, to pass fresh orders on the application so filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this case. The petition is disposed of in above terms. The petition is disposed of in above terms. The Registry is directed to return back the record of the case to the learned Rent Controller, forthwith. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.