Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: RC ARC 23/2024
Rani Bala vs. Hari Ram
Page 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK BENIWAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC 23/24
CNR No.:- DLET03-000249-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Ms. Rani Bala .... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Hari Ram ..... Respondent
Order
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application filed by non-applicant u/O I
Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Smt. Chander Mohini W/o Lt. Sh. Jasbir
Lal in the present proceedings.
2. Briefly put the background of the case is that the petition has been filed
u/S 14 (1)(A) of Delhi Rent Control Act by the petitioner. It is submitted that
the petitioner is the owner of the property (Entire Fourth Floor i.e. roof of third
floor), part of property bearing no. A-60/3, out of Khasra no. 399/265, New
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096 by virtue of registered Gift Deed vide registration
no. 536 in book no. 1 Vol. No. 10112 on page 51 to 58 on 08.02.2022 at Sub-
-- 1 of 4 --
RC ARC 23/2024
Rani Bala vs. Hari Ram
Page 2 of 4
Registrar VI, Delhi. It is averred that petitioner had got the property from
previous owner who had rented this property to respondent. That initially, the
respondent started to pay the rent to the petitioner but from February 2023, the
respondent stopped to pay the rent to the petitioner. When the respondent did
not pay the rent to the petitioner despite many requests, the petitioner issued a
legal notice dated 24.03.2023 to the respondent for paying the arrear of rent and
handover the vacant possession of the tenanted premises but defendant had not
paid the rent till date. The tenancy of the respondent was terminated by virtue of
above mentioned legal notice but the respondent is still occupying the same.
3. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner has filed the present
eviction petition on the basis of false, forged and fabricated facts and falsely
claimed herself the owner of the property in question, whereas the non-applicant
is the sole and absolute owner of the property in question. That since the day of
purchase of the said property, the non-applicant is residing therein and now she
is residing at the ground floor of the property in question and she has inducted
tenants in the said property. That after receiving the summons, the respondent
contacted the non-applicant and apprised that the petitioner has filed the present
case claiming herself as the owner of the property and demanding rent of his
portion in which he is residing whereas he is paying rent to the non-applicant.
Thereafter, the non-applicant narrated the true facts to the respondent and told
that the petitioner in the present case has no right to received any rent in respect
of the suit property. That the petitioner in collusion with her brother namely
Gulab fraudulently got executed the gift deed in their favor for which the non-
applicant filed a Civil Suit no. 680/22 for declaration/cancellation, permanent
and mandatory injunction as well as a complaint u/S 200 CrPC along with
-- 2 of 4 --
RC ARC 23/2024
Rani Bala vs. Hari Ram
Page 3 of 4
application u/S 156(3) CrPC against the petitioner and her brother Gulab Shah.
That the non-applicant is required to be impleaded as one of the defendant in the
present case.
4. Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC read as below:
“
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without
the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to
be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff
or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have
been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the
Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely
to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”
5. In J.J Lal Private Limited vs. M.R.Murali and Anr (AIR 2002 SC 1061),
it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that “
in a simple suit for
eviction between the landlord and the tenant, an application under Order I Rule
10 CPC filed by the applicants claiming title to the property cannot be
considered, as, that would change the complexion of the litigation and raise
such controversies as are beyond the scope of litigation. Any decision in the
ejectment suit would govern and bind the parties therein. The impleading
applicants are free to establish their claims and title whatever it may be in an
independent proceeding before a competant forum. Therefore, the applicants
claiming to be the owners in title cannot be permitted to come on record.”
6. The court is of the view that the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner for non-payment of rent. It is the settled law that the
-- 3 of 4 --
RC ARC 23/2024
Rani Bala vs. Hari Ram
Page 4 of 4
plaintiff/petitioner is the master of his/her case and it is the burden on the
plaintiff to prove his case.
7. In the present application, it is submitted that the owner of the property is
some other person, to whom non-applicant wants to implead herself as a party.
The court is of the view that if the non-applicant is the owner of the property,
then she must have filed the suit for eviction/non-payment of rent against the
tenants, whereas, the present suit is non-payment of rent filed by the petitioner
against the respondent. During the trial of the present suit, non-applicant can be
produced as a witness along with the relevant documents to prove the actual
ownership of the suit property.
8. In these circumstances, this court finds that the application is meritless
and hence, the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC stands dismissed.
Announced in open court
on this 05.05.2026.
(Vivek Beniwal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC, East
KKD Courts/Delhi
-- 4 of 4 --