Full Text
Translation output
% 21.01.2011
Present: Dr. M.K. Gahlaut, Adv. for the petitioner.
+ C.M. 1319/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. (M) No. 59/2011 & CM No. 1318/2011 (stay)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated
3.1.2011 passed by learned trial Court.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC.
It is stated in the impugned order that the respondent No.l is the tenant in respect of the shop in question and he has parted with possession to Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria. Thereafter, Shri
Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria has parted with possession of the suit shop to Shri Deepak Gupta and Shri Monu Gupta who are running the business in the said shop. By this petition, the petitioner wants to implead the Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria, Deepak Gupta and
Shri Monu Gupta as respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5.
Learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. An appeal was filed against the said order which was also dismissed by learned District Judge-Vlil and Addl. Rent Control
Tribunal, District Courts Rohini, Delhi.
2011:DHC:19920
-2
Ihave gone through the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, there are concurrent findings against the petitioner by the both courts below.
Ido not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned trial
Court.
Dismissed.
JANUARY 21, 2011
Kb
S.L. BHAYANA, J, 2011:DHC:19920
Present: Dr. M.K. Gahlaut, Adv. for the petitioner.
+ C.M. 1319/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. (M) No. 59/2011 & CM No. 1318/2011 (stay)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated
3.1.2011 passed by learned trial Court.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC.
It is stated in the impugned order that the respondent No.l is the tenant in respect of the shop in question and he has parted with possession to Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria. Thereafter, Shri
Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria has parted with possession of the suit shop to Shri Deepak Gupta and Shri Monu Gupta who are running the business in the said shop. By this petition, the petitioner wants to implead the Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabaria, Deepak Gupta and
Shri Monu Gupta as respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5.
Learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. An appeal was filed against the said order which was also dismissed by learned District Judge-Vlil and Addl. Rent Control
Tribunal, District Courts Rohini, Delhi.
2011:DHC:19920
-2
Ihave gone through the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, there are concurrent findings against the petitioner by the both courts below.
Ido not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned trial
Court.
Dismissed.
JANUARY 21, 2011
Kb
S.L. BHAYANA, J, 2011:DHC:19920
JUDGMENT