Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1058 (PNJ)

Monika v. Rajesh Sharma

2020-03-19

ALKA SARIN

body2020
JUDGMENT : ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16.01.2020 whereby the Rent Controller, Batala has dismissed the application for clubbing of the cases titled Monika vs. Rajesh Sharma and Asha Rani vs. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited. 2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that one Sat Dev Khullar was the owner of the suit property. After his death, Asha Rani along with other legal heirs stepped into his shoes. An ejectment petition was filed by Asha Rani titled Asha Rani vs. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited (RP/24/2015) on the ground of bona fide personal necessity, subletting and non-payment of rent. In the said case, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for being impleaded as a petitioner therein being a co-sharer. The said application was contested by Asha Rani on the ground that she had inherited the estate of Sat Dev Khullar vide Will dated 20.05.1985 and Monika Khullar, i.e., the petitioner herein had no interest in the property. The said application filed by Monika Khullar, the petitioner herein, was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller. Against the said order, the present petitioner filed Civil Revision No.5107 of 2015 in this Court. Vide order dated 29.03.2017, the revision petition was dismissed. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by Vibhu Khullar, minor son of Monika Khullar (petitioner herein) which was again dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 10.12.2018 with an observation that the applicant therein was not a necessary party and that one co-sharer was competent to file an ejectment petition against the tenant. Monika Khullar, petitioner herein, thereafter filed an ejectment petition titled Monika vs. Rajesh Sharma, Manager of The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited (RP/25/2017) on the ground of non payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity. On an application moved by the petitioners herein under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the file of Asha Rani vs. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited was transferred to be tried by the same Court. On an application moved by the petitioners herein under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the file of Asha Rani vs. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited was transferred to be tried by the same Court. Against the said order, Asha Rani filed Civil Revision No.3852 of 2019 in this Court wherein, vide order dated 29.11.2019, the order dated 17.01.2019 was upheld, however, with the rider that the two matters will not be clubbed with each other except by way of a reasoned order on an application filed by Monika. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for clubbing of the two cases on the ground that the shop in dispute was the same and that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings both the cases should be clubbed together. Vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2020, the said application for clubbing was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the shop in dispute was the same, hence, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the trial of the two cases should be clubbed together. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2019 (1) RCR (Rent) 419 (Gyan Aggarwal vs. Brij Bhushan Salwan) and a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangal Builders & Enterprises Limited & Anr vs. Williamson Magor & Company Ltd. & Anr, SLP No.9616-9617/2015 dated 06.04.2017 to contend that suit for eviction without joining the co-owners as a party was not maintainable. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.5107 of 2015 titled: Monika Khullar vs. Asha Rani and others, decided on 29.03.2017 to contend that the application for being impleaded as a party specifically was dismissed by this Court and it was held that a separate suit had already been filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title and partition and that the landlady, namely, Asha Rani was the widow of the original owner and had approached the Court on the basis of a Will and, therefore, the issue of title was already pending in a suit and the Rent Controller would not be the correct arena where the same is to be decided. 6. In the present case, the petitioner herein had initially filed an application for being impleaded as a party in the case filed by Asha Rani which application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and thereafter the revision preferred by her was also dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2017. It is an admitted fact that a civil suit had already been preferred by her for declaration of title and partition. Even the application moved on behalf of her son for being impleaded as a party was also dismissed. The application moved by the petitioner herein for clubbing of the two cases – one preferred by her and the other preferred by Asha Rani would lead to complicating the matter as the stands of both the parties stand on a different footing. Both the parties have filed ejectment petitions on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and, as noticed by the Rent Controller, the rent petition titled Asha Rani vs. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited is already at the fag end, whereas, the case filed by the petitioner is still at a preliminary stage. Further, the petitioner has already filed a suit for title and partition in the Civil Court. That being so, her interests are amply safeguarded. 7. In view of the above I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Controller. The revision petition which is wholly devoid of any merit is, hence, dismissed.