Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 146 (UTT)

SANJAY SAWNEY v. SANTHOSH SAWNEY

2013-03-18

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 10-12-2007 passed by Judge SCC/Addl. District Judge/2nd F.T.C. Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 16/2003, Santosh Sawney vs. Sukhdev, whereby the application filed by the revisionist U/O 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that SCC suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 against defendant respondent No.2, wherein eviction of the defendant/respondent No.2 has been sought from the premises in question mentioned in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be co-owner and landlady of the premises in suit. During the pendency of the suit the revisionist filed an application for impleament in the above suit on the ground that the property in suit was purchased by his father late Sri Nand Lal Sawney which was an evacuee property No. 90/91 Dandipur Mohalla Dehradun. Thus on the basis of conveyance deed he claims himself to be owner of the premises in question in place of plaintiff-respondent No.1. The learned Judge SCC placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in 2000(2) A.R.C. page 308, wherein it has been held- ‘Since the question is to be inter se between the plaintiff and the applicant, it is a question outside the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, such applicant can not be allowed which give rise to a question of title. By virtue of amendment or addition of parties, the entire complexion of the suit will be altered changing the nature and character of the suit between two plaintiffs, which cannot be decided in a suit for eviction between the plaintiff and defendant-tenants. If there is a right between the plaintiff and applicant and can be established through a separate suit before appropriate forum which can decide the disputed question. Therefore, the application has been rejected rightly. Thus, on the basis of the objection by the plaintiff, no person can be added as plaintiff in a suit.’ 4. If there is a right between the plaintiff and applicant and can be established through a separate suit before appropriate forum which can decide the disputed question. Therefore, the application has been rejected rightly. Thus, on the basis of the objection by the plaintiff, no person can be added as plaintiff in a suit.’ 4. The learned Judge SCC also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in J.T. 2006 (11) S.C. page 21, wherein in para-17 it has been held as under- ‘In this connection we may also point out that in an eviction petition filed on the ground of sub-letting and default, the court needs to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists and not the question of title to the properties in question which may be incidentally gone into but can not be decided finally in the eviction proceedings.’ 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has submitted that the rights and obligations between the revisionist and plaintiff/respondent No.1 are not germane to the eviction proceedings and the impleadment of revisionist would raise controversies beyond the scope of the present litigation hence the impleadment application has rightly be rejected by the Judge SCC. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and others versus M.R. Murali and another, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 98. 6. I have gone through the above cited case. In the cited case Municipal Corporation holding paramount title had sought impleadment in eviction suit filed by allottee landlords against their tenants and Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the relationship and matters of rights and obligations between the applicant Municipal Corporation and the allottee landlord were not germane to the eviction proceedings and its impleadment would raise controversies beyond the scope of the present litigation, nor their presence was necessary to adjudicate upon the present dispute and the application for impleadment was rejected. 7. In the case at hand the suit has been filed by plaintiff respondent No.1 against defendant respondent No.2 for his eviction and the revisionist has moved application for impleadment in said suit claiming himself to be owner of suit property. 7. In the case at hand the suit has been filed by plaintiff respondent No.1 against defendant respondent No.2 for his eviction and the revisionist has moved application for impleadment in said suit claiming himself to be owner of suit property. The impleadment of revisionist in the eviction suit would raise controversies beyond the scope of the present litigation and the rights and title of two persons claiming themselves to be owner of property in suit which was filed for eviction of the tenant, cannot be adjudicated upon and the impleadment has rightly been rejected by the Judge, SCC. 8. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The revision is dismissed. However, the revisionist shall be at liberty to file suit in competent court of jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievance.