Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2811 (RAJ)

Rishabh Kalra v. Gulab Devi

2017-12-18

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Under challenge is the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by Addl. Sr. Civil Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan but only insofar as he dismissed the application of the petitioner-applicant (hereafter 'the applicant') under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded as party filed in an eviction suit laid by the respondents-plaintiffs-landlords (hereafter 'the plaintiffs') against one Madho Das - the erstwhile tenant (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs 4/1 to 4/4 respondents-defendants before this Court). 2. The facts are that the plaintiff filed an eviction suit against Madho Das, the erstwhile tenant also impleading therein M/s. Kalra Gems, a firm under whose name and style business was being conducted from the tenanted shop. Following the tenant Madho Das's death, his wife, his son Sunil Kalra and daughters Preeti and Malvi were substituted by an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The applicant Rishabh Kalra then on his part moved an application for impleadment in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff stating that he Madho Das's grandson was at the time of his death doing business with him from the tenanted shop and had an interest in the eviction suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. Vide impugned order dated 29.8.2017, the application filed by the applicant for his impleadment in the eviction suit has been dismissed by the trial court primarily on account of the fact that the applicant did not fall within the definition of 'tenant' in terms of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter 'the Act of 1950'). 3. Mr. G.P. Kaushik, counsel for the aggrieved applicant has submitted that by virtue of being grandson and a class-II heir of the deceased tenant Madho Das under the Hindu Succession Act and also by virtue of having been working with Madho Das from the tenanted shop at the time of his death, the applicant as a statutory tenant under Section 3(vii)(b) of the Act of 1950 was entitled to be impleaded as a party in the eviction suit. It was further submitted that the father of the applicant Sunil Kalra S/o Madho Das had filed an affidavit before the trial court in support of the impleadment application stating that the applicant was indeed doing business with deceased Madho Das from the tenanted premises at the time of his death. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the applicant was entitled to be impleaded as party in the eviction suit. The trial court has therefore, failed to exercise its jurisdiction for perverse reasons in not so doing. 4. Per Contra, Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rahul Ghiya appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the right to impleadment in an eviction suit is only of tenant as defined under Section 3(vii)b of the Act of 1950. Mr. J.P. Goyal submitted that as per applicant's own say, he was the grandson of the deceased tenant Madho Das and not thus Class-I legal heir of Madho Das, not being his son, daughter or widow. Mr. J.P. Goyal further submitted that in the circumstance, the mere fact of the applicant doing business with Madho Das and being his grandson did not confer on him the status of 'tenant' and as such he could not be impleaded as a party in the eviction suit. It was submitted that there was neither any privity of contract between the plaintiff and an applicant in respect of the tenanted premises nor was there any obtaining statutory provision to foist such a relationship on the plaintiff. Mr. J.P. Goyal submitted that even otherwise, the plaintiff is the dominus litis in any suit and it is for him to implead the defendant/s against whom he wishes to agitate his grievance or assert his right and claim relief. It is not for anyone to inter-meddle in the said suit. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Admittedly on the applicant's own say he is the grandson of the deceased tenant Madho Das. He is thus not the Class-I legal heir of Madho Das in terms of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and has no right to Madho Das's estate in view of the fact that his father Sunil Kalra S/o Madho Das is still alive and would alone be entitled to succession to his estate. The applicant has therefore, no manner of interest in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs. The applicant has therefore, no manner of interest in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs. The affidavit of his father Sunil Kalra to the effect that applicant was doing business with Madho Das at the time of his death is also of no consequence. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the legal provision considered above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29.8.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the applicant's application for impleadment as party in the plaintiff's eviction suit is not vitiated in law. Contrarily it is well reasoned and requires no interference by this Court. 8. I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.