Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 45 (PAT)

Kanti Devi v. Bikee Kumar

2014-01-10

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2014
ORDER Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Kumar Alok, on behalf of the respondent No.2, Smt. Sitapati Devi and the learned counsel, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent No1. 2. The plaintiff petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the learned Munsif, Patnacity in title eviction suit No.2 of 2009 whereby the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2, Smt. Sitapati Devi for being added as party defendant in the eviction suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that simple suit for eviction on the ground of default was filed by the plaintiff against the respondent No.1. The present intervener/ respondent No.2 filed the application claiming title over the suit property and the lower Court has allowed the said application. According to the learned counsel, if the order is allowed to stand then the nature of the suit, i.e., simple suit for eviction will be changed and there will be contest of title between the plaintiff and the intervener which cannot be decided in eviction suit. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 intervener submitted that the other suits have been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession and in fact in the present case also the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 has stated in the written statement that this intervener is his landlord. 5. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff had filed for simple suit for eviction on the ground of default against the respondent No.1. 6. It is settled principle of law that a necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effect decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is settled principle of law that a necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effect decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit though he need not be a person involved or against whom the decree is to be made. Order 1 Rule 10 sub Rule 2 C.P.C. is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. In exercising its judicial discretion under the said Rule, the Court will of course act according to reason and fair play. 7. It is also settled principle of law that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in suit being dominus litis may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. In the present case the simple suit for eviction was filed. Therefore, for passing a decree in the present suit under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the prime consideration is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 8. In the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Basudeo Prasad A.I.R. 2002 SC 136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in any event enquiry into title of the plaintiff is beyond the scope of the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act. While dealing with the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises the sine qua non for granting the relief in the suit, under the Act, is that between the plaintiffs and the defendant the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' should exist. The scope of the enquiry before the Courts was limited to the question as to whether the grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made out under the Act. The scope of the enquiry before the Courts was limited to the question as to whether the grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made out under the Act. The question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant having regard to the width of the definition of the terms "landlord" and "tenant" in clauses (f) and (h) respectively of Section 2 of the Act.. In the case of Arbind Kumar Pal Vs. Hazin Bibi Khairun 2005 (2) P.L.J.R. 14 , this Court has held that even by impleadment of a party, the nature of the suit will be changed to regular title suit involving question of title, the application cannot be allowed. 9. In view of the above settled proposition of law, in my opinion, the intervener respondent No.2 cannot be added as party in the present eviction suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 because in this eviction suit the title between the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 cannot be decided. In view of the above settled proposition of law, in my opinion, the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law. Thus, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.