Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2969 (ALL)

Shailendra Kumar Gupta v. Amit Srivastava

2017-12-18

RAJAN ROY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. Supplementary affidavit by the petitioner as also short counter affidavit by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have been filed, which are taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner herein under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment in the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1972') pending before the SCC Court. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Premlata Bhargava was the landlady of the tenanted premises in question and Y.N. Srivastava, predecessor of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, was the tenant. A suit for eviction was filed by the landlady against Y.N. Srivastava wherein a compromise was arrived at and it was agreed that an agreement-to-sale would be executed in favour of Y.N. Srivastava. The sale-consideration and other conditions were also agreed upon. In pursuance to it an agreement-to-sale was executed on 19.4.1984. The important point to be noted is that the said agreement-to-sale mentioned that possession of the premises was being handed over to Sri J.N. Srivastava and that the land-lady i.e. the vendor would not realize the rent of the premises in question. The agreement-tosale also mentioned that the vendee would have a right to transfer the property, however, for reasons which are disputed the sale-deed could not ultimately be executed, instead the landlady executed the sale-deed of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner herein on 28.2.1994, but it is not in dispute that the petitioner has never been in possession nor has he let out the premises to anybody. 5. It is not in dispute that it was the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties and after his demise the opposite parties who are in possession of the premises in question allegedly as landlord and have inducted tenants in four new shops constructed by Sri J.N. Srivastava as stated by Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Various proceedings have taken place for eviction etc. between the opposite parties and their alleged tenants wherein according to Sri Saxena, Advocate his clients have been found to be the land-lords of the premises in question. Various proceedings have taken place for eviction etc. between the opposite parties and their alleged tenants wherein according to Sri Saxena, Advocate his clients have been found to be the land-lords of the premises in question. An order declaring vacancy of the premises has also been set aside according to him and the matter has attained finality upto the High Court. 6. On the other hand Sri T.N. Gupta and Sri K.C. Bhasin, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner submits that mere agreement-to-sale does not confer any title nor any right to let out the premises in question. He also states that against the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the opposite parties based on the agreement-to-sale an appeal has been filed which is still pending. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner herein is that they would be prejudiced in the event they are not impleaded in the proceedings in question and it would have an affect on their rights of title, ownership and possession of the premises in question. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records the Court finds that the dispute which is pending before the Courts below is between the alleged lessor and lessee and it relates to a tenancy premises. 8. It is admitted that the opposite parties are in possession of the premises based on an agreement-to-sale in respect of which a decree for specific performance has also been passed by the Civil Court which has been challenged in appeal. 9. It is also not in dispute that it is the opposite parties and their predecessors-in-interest who had let out the premises in question including the letting out to Gautam Sharma, who is a joint tenant with opposite party No. 5. The opposite party No. 6 is brother of opposite party No. 5 and is joint-tenant of the premises. The rent as stated by Sri Saxena, Advocate, is being realized by his clients. 10. On being confronted as to whether the petitioner was realizing the rent, Sri Bhasin, Advocate fairly stated that Gautam Sharma and Ramesh Sharma were not his tenants and that the premises had not been let out by the petitioner. His only concern is with regard to his rights in respect of the premises in question. 11. 10. On being confronted as to whether the petitioner was realizing the rent, Sri Bhasin, Advocate fairly stated that Gautam Sharma and Ramesh Sharma were not his tenants and that the premises had not been let out by the petitioner. His only concern is with regard to his rights in respect of the premises in question. 11. The law is very well settled that questions of title and ownership are not decided in the proceedings before the S.C.C Court. The dispute is between the alleged landlord and tenant. There is no question of title being considered and decided either by the S.C.C. Court or by the Revisional Court. The rights of the petitioner, if any, based on the sale-deed executed by Prem Lata Bhargava in his favour are pending adjudication in the appeal, if not, the same can be agitated before the Civil Court in appropriate proceedings. He may also seek possession of the premises based on the said sale-deed, but the fact of the matter is that as on date the opposite parties are in possession and have let out the premises. 12. Whether Sri J.N. Srivastava and after him his legal heirs/representatives are landlords within the definition of section 31(a) of the Act 1972 and whether the said Act is applicable to the premises in question are issues which shall be considered by the Courts below, but as of now the Court does not find that the petitioner herein is a necessary party in the dispute at hand. In this view of the matter the Court does not find any error in the orders of the Court below. 13. As regards contention of Sri T.N. Gupta, his clients may at least be given a right of hearing under Order 1, Rule 8(a), the Court finds that the said provision empowers the Court, while trying a suit, if satisfied that a person or body at present is interested in any question of law, which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit, as the Court may specify. 14. 14. The Court fails to understand as to how this provision is attracted in the present case in view of the pleadings in the petition. Furthermore, the Court finds that application of the petitioner was under Order 1, Rule 10, and not under Order 1, Rule 8-A, therefore, this contention is also rejected. 15. One of the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner reported in 2009(3) ARC 734, Ram Rikh Das Thakur Das (M/s) & anr. v. District Judge & ors., far from helping the petitioner goes against him, as in that case in similar circumstances a person claiming ownership sought impleadment which was rejected on the ground that questions of title are not decided in proceedings before the SCC Court. This Court also took the same view of the matter. 16. It is absolutely incorrect to say as was done by Sri Gupta that any observation made here-in-above prejudices the petitioner's right of ownership, title or possession per se of the premises in question, as none of these issues are involved in the proceedings in question, needless to say that none of the observations/findings either by this Court or by the Courts below even if they touch upon the question of title or ownership, would have any bearing in any proceeding initiated or to be initiated by the petitioner in respect thereof. 17. In view of the above the petition is dismissed.