Inderjit Kalra vs Subhash Ahuja

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner, in this case, has filed a petition, u/s 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, for eviction of the respondent from certain premises, which he claims to have purchased from Custodian of Evacuee Property. It is also the case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the petition, that after he purchased the share of the custodian, partition has taken place and the portion, from which eviction of the respondent is sought, has fallen to his share.

Eviction of the respondent, who was inducted as tenant by Custodian of Evacuee Property, prior to the purchase of custodian''s share by the petitioner, is sought, on the ground of reconstruction. Respondent is contesting that petition and one of the grounds raised by him is that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is alleged to be the owner of the site of the building, in question.

Rent Controller framed issues, recorded the evidence adduced by the petitioner and when the evidence of the respondent was in the process of being recorded, an application was moved, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh as party. That application has been allowed by the Rent Controller and it is against this order of the Rent Controller that the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Submission made on behalf of the respondent is that the State of Himachal Pradesh is a necessary party, because the site, on which the building stands, belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh, though the structure standing thereon was earlier owned by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and now by the petitioner. Respondent is a tenant under the petitioner, because he was inducted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and now the petitioner has purchased the structure from that custodian.

Learned Counsel submits that since the ground, on which eviction is sought, is reconstruction of the structure and the site belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner cannot reconstruct, on the site, which belongs to the State and, therefore, State of Himachal Pradesh is a necessary party. Submission is misconceived. In case the site belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh and it is found that the petitioner has no right to reconstruct at that site, that by itself would be a ground for rejection of the petition, because in that case plea of reconstruction would not be a bonafide one. Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Rent Controller has acted illegally in allowing the impleadment of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Hence, the petition is allowed and impugned order of the Rent Controller is set aside.

Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.