Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 22RC ARC 194/25
Prakash Chand VS. Kanta
16.03.2026
Present: None.
Matter is listed for orders on an application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC.
Put up for orders at 02:00 PM.
(DIVYA GUPTA)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
16.03.2026
At 02:00 PM
Present: None.
1. Vide this order I shall decide an application under Order I
Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of applicant Sh. Shashank Bhushan Gupta in
view of order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in RC REV 339/2025.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the petitioner
has falsely stated Sumer Chand to be the tenant of the petitioner, whereas it
was the applicant who was the tenant of the petitioner and was in
possession of the tenanted shop for last more than 20 years. It is submitted
that the applicant has filed several documents to show his possession in the
tenanted premises for last more than 20 years. The Ld. Counsel for
applicant has placed reliance upon submissions made by son of Sh. Sumer
Chand/ respondent no. 4 in RC REV 339/2025 as well as upon an affidavit
-- 1 of 3 --
filed by son of Sh. Sumer Chand (respondent no.2 herein). Accordingly, it is
prayed that applicant may be impleaded as a respondent in the present
matter.
3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for
petitioner that present applicant has no concern with the petitioner and
eviction petition has been filed only against the tenant. That applicant is not
the tenant of petitioner. That applicant has not placed any rent receipts nor
deposited rent.That petitioner is not required to file eviction petition against
a stranger.
4. Heard. Perused.
5. It is pertinent to note that respondent no. 2 herein/son of Sh.
Sumer Chand has filed an affidavit stating that tenanted shop had already
been vacated by late Sumer Chand in the year 2003 and vacant and peaceful
possession was handed over to applicant herein (Sh. Shashank Bhushan
Gupta) on the express instructions and with full knowledge and consent of
petitioners herein.
6. Though it is correctly argued on behalf of petitioners that
that there cannot be any eventuality where the landlord can be compelled to
admit a person as his tenant, as in the present case. When the petitioner has
categorically denied any relationship of landlord and tenant with the
applicant, the applicant cannot be permitted to state that he is the tenant of
the petitioner. However, it is observed that power u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC has to
be exercised to implead a party who is either necessary or proper party to
-- 2 of 3 --
the case. In the present facts and circumstances, when admittedly applicant
herein is in possession of subject property, if not necessary, at least he is a
proper party to the present petition as his presence shall facilitate the court
in determination of matter in dispute.
7. Hence, present application Order I Rule 10 CPC is hereby
allowed and disposed of accordingly. The applicant Sh. Shashank Bhushan
Gupta is impleaded as respondent no. 5. Petitioner is directed to file
amended memo of parties within 15 days with an advance copy to opposite
parties.
8. It is further observed that in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, where the petitioner himself has denied the tenancy of the
applicant/respondent no. 5 and admittedly respondent no. 1 to 4 are not in
possession of subject property since 2003, the court is of the view that
prima facie, petition is not maintainable in the present form.
9. Put up for arguments on maintainability of petition of the
present petition on 02.05.2026.
(DIVYA GUPTA)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
16.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --