Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Order Date: 09.07.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner – M/s Ashim & Company (proprietor Ashim Talwar); Respondent – M/s Universal Fastners Pvt. Ltd.; Proposed third party – Sardar Sarabjit Singh Minhas.
- Case Number: CR-4515-2025 (O&M).
- Nature of Proceeding: Revision petition against the order dated 02.07.2025 of the Rent Controller, Faridabad, which dismissed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Sardar Sarabjit Singh Minhas in the eviction petition.
- Background: The petitioner alleges that a partnership deed dated 02.12.2019 transformed its proprietary concern into a partnership firm and that possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to the newly inducted partner, Sardar Sarabjit Singh Minhas. An arbitral award dated 29.07.2024 purportedly released the petitioner from liabilities of the firm, prompting the request to implead Minhas as a necessary party for effective adjudication.
- Respondent’s Position: The landlord contended that the tenancy originated under a lease dated 02.12.1987 between the respondent and Ashim & Company (through Ashim Talwar). Minhas is a stranger to the tenancy, never recognized as a tenant, and any internal partnership arrangement cannot bind the landlord. The arbitral award governs only inter‑se partner rights and does not affect the landlord’s independent rights. The application was viewed as a tactic to delay eviction and introduce collateral disputes.
- Legal Reasoning: The Court referenced Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited (2010), reiterating that a plaintiff (landlord) is the dominus litis and a third party can be impleaded only if he is a necessary or proper party for effective decree. The Court emphasized that internal disputes between tenant partners are collateral and cannot compel the landlord to litigate against a third person.
- Article 227 Consideration: The Court noted that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or jurisdictional error. No such infirmity was found in the Rent Controller’s order.
Final Outcome
- The revision petition is dismissed in entirety.
- The Rent Controller’s order denying impleadment of Sardar Sarabjit Singh Minhas stands upheld.
- Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Topics: Impleadment, Eviction, Landlord‑Tenant