Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 764 (RAJ)

Laxman v. Shri Raj Kumar Anr.

2014-03-25

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 6.7.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No. 64/07, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party respondents in the petition, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in terms that the respondent no.2-tenant may be directed to pay the rent of the premises to the petitioners and the respondent no.1 may be restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the respondent no.2. 3. The suit is being contested by the respondent no. 1 by filing a written statement thereto. The respondent has also filed cross suit for possession, permanent injunction and declaration in respect of the disputed property. 4. On the application preferred by the petitioners seeking temporary injunction, the respondent no.1 has been restrained by the court from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and the tenant. That apart, the tenants, defendant no.2 to 4 therein, have been directed that on the premises being vacated, the possession thereof shall not be handed over to anybody else except the petitioners herein. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 1 preferred a petition for eviction under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, against the tenant M/s. Dalchand Bachhraj & Company represented by its partner Shri Gopal Singhvi, the defendant no.3 in the suit filed by the petitioners, pending before the court of Civil Judge(J.D.), Udaipur City. 6. The petitioners preferred an application for impleading them as party respondents in the petition stating that in respect of the disputed premises, a suit between the parties involving question of title as well as landlord and tenant relationship is already pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in the petition shall obviously adversely affect the rights of the petitioners. 7. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that in the petition filed for eviction, the question of ownership of the premises is not required to be gone into and therefore, any dispute existing between the parties regarding the ownership over the disputed premises is of no relevance. 8. 7. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that in the petition filed for eviction, the question of ownership of the premises is not required to be gone into and therefore, any dispute existing between the parties regarding the ownership over the disputed premises is of no relevance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is true that in the petition for eviction, the Rent Tribunal is required to determine only the question with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties but then, in the suit filed by the petitioners wherein temporary injunction has been granted by the court restraining the tenant from handing over the possession of the premises on its being vacated only to the petitioners herein is operative, the question of landlord and tenant relationship is also involved inasmuch as, in the said suit, the respondent no.1 has claimed to be landlord of the tenants occupying the premises. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the question sought to be raised in the petition filed being substantially and directly in the issue in the earlier suit, the Rent Tribunal cannot proceed with the inquiry as to landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that in any case on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners deserve to be impleaded as party respondents in the rent petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that it is well settled that the question with regard to the ownership of the premises cannot be gone into by the Rent Tribunal in a petition for eviction filed by the landlord and therefore, the petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be owner of the disputed premises cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party respondents. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court in the matter of "Birendra Singh v. Narendra Kumar & Ors.", 1989(1)All India Rent Control Journal 580 and "Achalulal v. Surendra Kumar", 1989(1) All India Rent Control Journal 650 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court in the matter of "Birendra Singh v. Narendra Kumar & Ors.", 1989(1)All India Rent Control Journal 580 and "Achalulal v. Surendra Kumar", 1989(1) All India Rent Control Journal 650 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners have preferred the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction wherein the respondent no.1 has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners and the tenant occupying the premises and further the tenant has been restrained from handing over the possession of the premises to anybody else except the petitioners herein. It is not disputed before this court that the question of ownership of the premises and consequently, who is the landlord of the tenant occupying the premises, is a contentious issue between the parties in the suit pending before the civil court. It is also not in dispute that the petition filed by the respondent no.1 seeking eviction of the tenant relates to the same premises and therefore, the temporary injunction granted in the terms indicated above by the court being operative, if any order directing eviction of tenant from the premises is passed by the Rent Tribunal, it is likely to be in conflict with the injunction granted by the civil court. That apart, the issue with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship in respect of the premises in question being also directly involved in the pending suit, in the considered opinion of this court, if not necessary party, at least the petitioners are proper party in the matter and for complete and effectual adjudication of the controversy involved as also to avoid any conflicting order being passed in two proceedings pending before different fora, it is appropriate that the petitioners are impleaded as party respondents in the rent petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein, against the respondent no.2. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No. 64/07 is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party respondents in the rent petition is allowed. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******