Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 21 (ALL)

Ram Govind v. Ram Pyare Singh

2011-01-04

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in Revision No. 3 of 2008 whereby the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaunpur rejecting the impleadment application of the respondents no.2 and 3 has been set aside. 2. The petitioner is a landlord of the premises in dispute . A suit, being SCC suit no. 35 of 1982, for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner against the tenant respondent no. 1, Ram Pyare Singh on the ground of default in payment of the rent. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents no. 2 and 3, claiming themselves to be the landlord of the premises in dispute, filed an application under Order I rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. on 23.11.2006 seeking their impleadment in the said suit. 4. The petitioner filed his objection to the aforementioned impleadment application alleging therein that he is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute and the respondents no. 2 and 3 have no concern at all with the said property , as such they are not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the said suit. It was further pleaded that the impleadment application has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 at a very belated stage i.e. after 24 years of commencement of the suit proceeding in collusion with the tenant ? respondent no. 1. 5. The trial court, after considering the materials available on the record and hearing the respective parties, dismissed the impleadment application on 23.11.2007. 6. Being aggrieved with the above order, the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a revision before the District Judge which was allowed by judgment and order dated 3.5.2008 by setting aside the judgement and order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the trial court . Hence, the present writ petition. 7. The impleadment application dated 23.11.2006 was filed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 merely on the basis of judgement and decree dated 18.9.1963 passed in the suit no. 14 of 1958, filed by the deity Sri Mahadeoji and others through Mutwalli Sri Bhagwan Das for a declaration that the property was the endowed property and for the demolition of unauthorized constructions made over some portion of the said property. 2 and 3 merely on the basis of judgement and decree dated 18.9.1963 passed in the suit no. 14 of 1958, filed by the deity Sri Mahadeoji and others through Mutwalli Sri Bhagwan Das for a declaration that the property was the endowed property and for the demolition of unauthorized constructions made over some portion of the said property. The case of the respondents no. 2 and 3 was that they being owners of the disputed property are necessary and proper party and therefore they are entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the the District judge has acted illegally and transgressed his jurisdiction while allowing the impleadment application of the respondents no. 2 and 3 under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. in a rent suit proceeding. He further submitted that the respondents no. 2 and 3 can neither be said to be necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings. They, therefore, could not be joined as party in the proceedings under the Act . It was further submitted that the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide the "title" to the property and the only question it has to consider is as to whether the "landlord" is entitled to possession on the grounds mentioned in the application for eviction or not. It was further submitted that it was not even the case of the respondents no. 2 and 3 that the petitioner was not entitled to rent. He further submits that the the impleadment application has been filed malafide in collusion with the sitting tenant after lapse of about 24 years of the suit proceeding without explaining the delay in filing the said impleadment application . It is further submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the alleged suit no. 14 of 1958, the decree passed in that suit has no binding effect upon the petitioner and, moreover , the said judgment and decree dated 18.9.63 was never got executed by the respondents no. 2 and 3. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the decisions in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal and another : 2004(2) ARC 524, Municipal Board , Budaun Vs. IIIrd Addl. 2 and 3. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the decisions in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal and another : 2004(2) ARC 524, Municipal Board , Budaun Vs. IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Budaun and others : 1996(2) ARC 672 and Ruma Chakraborty Vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee and another : 2005(2) ARC 907. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 submitted that by virtue of the judgement and decree dated 18.9.63 they have genuine interest and right over the property in dispute and refusal to implead them as a proper party to the suit will cause irreparable loss and it will only add to multiplicity of proceedings and, therefore, they are liable to be impleaded as party in the said suit . 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. A bare perusal of the record goes to show that a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner-landlord against the the tenant respondent no. 1 in the year 1982 . The respondents no. 2 and 3 claiming themselves to be the owner of the property in dispute filed an impleadment application on the basis of the judgement and decree dated 18.9.1963. However, the said decree was never executed by the respondents no. 2 and 3. The present suit is merely for arrears of rent and ejectment. 13. Here , it is notable that although the suit was filed in the year 1982, the respondents did not bother to file any impleadment application and it was only on 23.11.2006 i.e. after 24 years they filed an impleadment application claiming themselves to the owner of the property in dispute without giving any plausible explanation whatsoever for such inordinate delay in filing the impleadment application . 14. A suit by a landlord against a tenant is cognizable by Judge, Small Causes Court on limited questions. The Judge , Small Causes Court can not decide the question of title. He has to decide the limited question as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. In case the plaintiff has based his rights on the basis of a title, then the Court has to return the plaint as provided under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887. He has to decide the limited question as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. In case the plaintiff has based his rights on the basis of a title, then the Court has to return the plaint as provided under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887. According to the plaintiff the property in dispute was let out to the respondent no.1 by him. 15. The only question to be considered by the courts below is as to whether the landlord is entitled to possession on the grounds mentioned in the application for eviction or not. It has not been disputed that the tenant - respondent no. 1 used to pay rent to the petitioner. Clause (j) of Section 3 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 ( in short 'the Act') defines " landlord" as a person to whom rent is payable . In the present case when the rent was payable and was, in fact, paid to the petitioner , no one else was the necessary party. Even the respondents no. 2 and 3 have not said that the rent was not paid by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner. Issue of ownership could not be decided in the proceedings under the said Act of 1972. 16. Keeping in view the definition of "landlord" in Section 3(j) of the Act, the respondents no. 2 and 3 can neither be said to be necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings. The question of title can not be decided under the Act. From perusal of the record it transpires that in the proceedings of suit no. 14 of 1958, the petitioner was not a party and as such the judgement and decree passed in that suit has no bearing to the merit of the present case. The record further shows that the said decree was never put to execution by the respondents no. 2 and 3 . There seems to be no justification to seek impleadment in the case after a lapse of 24 years . 17. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 2 and 3 . There seems to be no justification to seek impleadment in the case after a lapse of 24 years . 17. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgement and order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in Revision No. 3 of 2008 is set aside and the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaunpur rejecting the impleadment application of the respondents no.2 and 3 stands confirmed. Since the proceedings are pending since long, the court below is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties.