Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 175 (RAJ)

Vimla Devi v. Nand Lal

1992-02-13

R.S.KEJRIWAL

body1992
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 30.10.1991, passed by Additional Civil Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which he allowed the application of the Non-Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and impleaded them as defendants in the suit. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the Non-Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. In that suit, the Non Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for becoming parties on the ground that the disputed property was leased out by their father Keshar Lal and as such they were necessary parties in the suit. The trial Court allowed the application and impleaded the Non-Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 as defendants in the suit, vide its order dated 30.10.1991. This order has been challenged by the plaintiff petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the dispute which the non-petitioners want to raise in the present suit is regarding title which is foreign to the present suit and as such the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be impleaded in the suit. The present suit has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant and in the suit the question as to whether the plaintiff is owner of the property or the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the property cannot be decided. In support of the arguments, he placed reliance on Ramesh Chandra v. Mukhtyar Singh, 1980 RLW 110 ; Achalulal v. Surendra Kumar and Remeshwar Dayal v. U.I.T. Alwar and others, 1989 (1) RLR 231 . He argued that the order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary one and deserves to be set aside and in case it is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. 4. On the other hand. Mr. Jain, counsel for non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, argued that the trial Court rightly allowed their application. He argued that they are the sons of the late Shri. Kehar Lal, who was the owner of the property. He further argued that the plaintiff has no right or title in the disputed property and as such she cannot file any suit against the tenants for recovery of rent and eviction. He argued that they are the sons of the late Shri. Kehar Lal, who was the owner of the property. He further argued that the plaintiff has no right or title in the disputed property and as such she cannot file any suit against the tenants for recovery of rent and eviction. He also argued that they are receiving the rent from the tenants and as such they are also landlords of the tenants. In support of his arguments, Mr. Jain placed reliance on Smt. Sugrabi v. Hari Ram and others, 1983 (1) RCJ 623 and Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 . 5. Mr. Pradeep Singh, counsel for the non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 (tenants) argued that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are necessary parties in the suit and in their absence suit cannot be decided. He further argued that there was an agreement amongst all the legal heirs of late Shri. Kesar Lal. Bhawani Shanker husband of plaintiff-petitioner was entitled for the rent for the months of January, May and September and for rent of the months, the non petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to recover rent. He further argued that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 also served a notice on non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 to pay rent to them. He argued that under these circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 will also be impleaded as defendants in the suit otherwise it would creeate complications. In Achalula's case (supra), the facts were that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of rent and eviction. Third party filed an application for impleading as a defendant on the ground that the party was the owner of the property. The trial Court rejected the said application. On revision, this Court held that the trial Court rightly rejected the application. This Court further held that the dispute relating to title cannot form the subject-matter of the suit for arrears of rent. 6. In Rameshwar Dayal's case (supra), this Court held that addition of non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 as parties having the effect of enlarging scope of suit and also of adversely affecting petitioner by placing him under additional burden of dealing with matters which were not subject-matter of controversy. 6. In Rameshwar Dayal's case (supra), this Court held that addition of non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 as parties having the effect of enlarging scope of suit and also of adversely affecting petitioner by placing him under additional burden of dealing with matters which were not subject-matter of controversy. This Court held that the trial Court committed illegality and material irregularity in impleading the non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 as a party to the suit. 7. In Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) this Court held as under:- "The non-petitioner No. 4 wants to become a party independently in his own right and wants to get the controversy determined in this very suit whether he is owner and in possession of the suit property. This kind of controversy as raised by the non-petitioner No.4 would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff Himmat Singh and the defendant." 8. This Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial court, by which the trial Court impleaded non-petitioner No.4 as a party. 9. In Smt. Sugrabi v. Hari Ram and others 1983(1) RCJ 623, the court rejected the application of the intervener submitted under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The High Court held that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for being joined as a party. 10. In Razia Begum's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that generally the question of addition of parties under Rule 10ORDER1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. This case was also considered by this Court in Achalulal's case (supra). As held in Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) in case the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are impleaded in the present suit, the enquiry of the suit is likely to be enlarged. The Court has to give a finding as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute or the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the property. This type of enquiry is not required in a suit filed by the landlord against a tenant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The Court has to give a finding as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute or the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the property. This type of enquiry is not required in a suit filed by the landlord against a tenant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In my view, the order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary one and in case the same is allowed to stand, it would cause a failure of justice and will create complications. 11. Consequently, I allow the revision, set aside the judgment of trial Court dated 30.10.1991, and dismiss the application of the non-petitioner Nos.1 to 3 submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is however, observed that the decree passed in the present suit will not be binding on the non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.Application dismissed.