Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 649 (RAJ)

Puran Chand v. Vijay Kumar

1993-10-04

M.C.JAIN

body1993
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated August 3, 1993 by which he has dismissed the application of the petitioner Pooran Chand moved under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party in the ejectment suit-Vijay Kumar v. M/s. Kripa Ram Ganeshi Lal. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. In the year 1978, the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 Vijay Kumar filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 M/s. Kripa Ram Ganeshi Lal on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity, sub- letting and default in payment of rent. Subsequently, the grounds of sub- letting and reasonable and bonafide necessity were abandoned. On July 8, 1992 the applicant moved the said application stating that he was inducted as a sub-tenant in a part of the suit premises by its previous owner Ratanlal and as such he is a necessary party in the suit. The plaintiff filed his reply, seriously opposing it. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and the applicant, the learned court dismissed the application by its order under challenge. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant Pooran Chand that he was inducted as a sub-tenant in a part of the suit premises by the tenant (defendant) with the consent of the previous owner Ratanlal, admission of the petitioner as a sub-tenant with the consent of the landlord gave him the status of the tenant, there is now collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant, if the suit is decreed on the basis of default in payment of rent, the petitioner shall be evicted in execution of the said decree, he shall not be able to defend himself and as such he has moved the said application. 4. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 filed his caveat. In reply, it has been contended by his learned Counsel that it is well settled law that a sub- tenant is not a necessary party in a suit for ejectment against the tenant and the sub-tenant is bound with the decree of ejectment if passed against the tenant-in-chief. He relied upon M/s. I.M. Ltd. v. Firoj Framrodge , AIR 1953 Supreme Court 73, Mrs. He relied upon M/s. I.M. Ltd. v. Firoj Framrodge , AIR 1953 Supreme Court 73, Mrs. V. Howard v. Smt. Shyam Rani Bhargava , 1989(2) RLR 251 and M/s. Kirparam Ganeshi Lal v. Vijay Kumar , 1989(1) RLW 469. He further contended that the application has not been moved by the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 M/s. Kripa Ram Ganeshi Lal (tenant) by the petitioner Poonam Chand at the fagest end of the suit after they were unsuccessful in the following appeals, revision petitions and special leave petitions filed in this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court : 1. Revision petition No. 39/82, dismissed on 30.8.1982. 2. S.B. Appeal No. 9/86, dismissed on 30.1.1986. 3. D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 8/86, dismissed on 10.2.1986. 4. SLP No. 4033/86, dismissed on 3.4.1986. 5. Review of SLP No. 4035, dismissed on 12.12.1986. 6. Revision No. 109/87, dismissed on 3.7.1987. 7. Revision No. 43/89, dismissed on 10.3.1989. 8. SLP No. 7904/98-90, dismissed on 27.2.1990. 9. Revision No. 420/90 dismissed on 30.1.1991. 10. Revision No. 446/91, dismissed on 3.3.1992. 11. Revision No. 591/91, dismissed on 3.3.1992. 12. Revision No. 317/92, dismissed on 28.1.1993. 5. There is no substance in the revision petition, Para No. 3 of the revision petition runs as under:- "3. That the applicant was admitted as sub-tenant by non-petitioner No. 2 in a portion of his shop No. 102 and this admission as sub- tenant was with the consent of former owner Sri Ratan Lal. No objection was ever raised by Ratanlal regarding sub-tenancy of the petitioner. In respect of two rooms which were given to him, it shall be mentioned that admission of the petitioner as sub-tenant with the consent of landlord gave status of a tenant to the petitioner....Petitioner became tenant of landlord Ratanlal from whom the premises have been purchased by the present plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1." In the first sub-para of the above quoted para, the petitioner has claimed himself to be the sub-tenant and in the second sub-para he claims the status of a tenant. In the ground No. (iv) also, it has been averred that the sub- tenancy with the consent of the landlord amounted to tenancy. It is thus clear that the petitioner himself is not clear whether he is a sub-tenant or a tenant. In the ground No. (iv) also, it has been averred that the sub- tenancy with the consent of the landlord amounted to tenancy. It is thus clear that the petitioner himself is not clear whether he is a sub-tenant or a tenant. Consent of the landlord for inducting a sub-tenant in the demised premises by a tenant cannot go to confer a sub-tenant the status of tenant. He remains a sub-tenant. Consent does not change a sub-tenancy into a tenancy. Sub-letting with consent does not furnish a ground of ejectment under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. 6. Para No. 4 of the revision petition runs as under:- "4. That when the petitioner came to know that ground of sub- tenancy has been abandoned it became necessary for him to implead sub tenant as defendant in the suit but after deletion of these grounds as well as reliefs, the plaintiff thought it improper to implead the petitioner as party in the suit." It is thus the admitted case of the petitioner that the ground of sub letting has been abandoned by the plaintiff. A sub-tenant is not at all a necessary party in a suit for ejectment particularly when sub-letting is not a ground for ejectment. In Noratmal v. Smt. Sobhag Kanwar and others , 1990(1) RLR 371 , sub-letting was a ground for ejectment and as such it was held that the sub-tenant was a necessary party. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is now a collusion in between the plaintiff and the defendant (landlord and tenant). On the contrary, there is a great force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 that the said application has not been moved by the defendant-Non-petitioner No. 2 to further delay the disposal of the suit and to create complications. In ordinate delay of over 15 years in moving the said application has also not been explained. The mere fact that the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 lost in every round of litigation taken upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, leaves no manner of doubt that this application has not been moved by the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 (tenant). In ordinate delay of over 15 years in moving the said application has also not been explained. The mere fact that the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 lost in every round of litigation taken upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, leaves no manner of doubt that this application has not been moved by the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 (tenant). As held in I.M. Ltd. v. Firoj Framrodge (supra), the petitioner would be bound by the decree of ejectment passed in the aforesaid suit filed the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******