Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1388 (HP)

Radhika Verma v. Milan Sharma

2019-09-12

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order, dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P. in CMA CIS CNR Reg. No. 373/2019 in RBT No. 16-2 of 2017/12, titled as Shri Milan Sharma and others Vs. Shri Rajinder Kumar, vide which, an application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading her as a necessary party in the Eviction Petition, stands dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that Eviction Petition has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as =the landlords') against one Shri Rajinder Kumar, impleaded in the present petition as respondent No. 4, i.e., Rent Petition No. 16-2 of 2017/12, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla. This petition was filed by the landlords in the year 2012. 3. In April, 2019, an application was filed by the present petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading her as a party respondent in the Eviction Petition. It was mentioned in the application that the premises were initially under the tenancy of late Shri Amar Chand, who was her father. She had also inherited the tenancy being legal heir of late Shri Amar Chand alongwith her brother Shri Rajender Kumar. In the Eviction Petition, the landlords had impleaded only Shri Rajender Kumar as a party respondent. Petitioner was also residing in the demised premises during her visits to Shimla and she was a proper and necessary party for the adjudication of Eviction Petition. The factum of filing of the Eviction Petition was not disclosed to her by her brother Sh. Rajinder Kumar. It was only a day before the filing of the application when the applicant was in the premises to see the accounts of business that one of the landlord met her and unintentionally apprised her about the pendency of Eviction Petition. On these grounds, impleadment was sought by the applicant in the Eviction Petition on the plea that non-impleadment of the applicant in the Eviction Petition would cause her irreparable loss and injury and would lead to multiplicity of litigation. On these grounds, impleadment was sought by the applicant in the Eviction Petition on the plea that non-impleadment of the applicant in the Eviction Petition would cause her irreparable loss and injury and would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 4. Landlords resisted the application, inter alia, on the ground that the application was not filed bonafidely, but was filed with an ulterior motive of delaying the case in collusion with the impleaded respondent-tenant in the Eviction Petition. As per the landlords, applicant was neither residing nor settled in Shimla nor she ever participated in the business with her father. As per the landlords, applicant had not produced any document on record to demonstrate that she was either residing in Shimla or was participating in the business with her father. It was further the case of the landlords that as the cause of the applicant was being watched by her brother, therefore also she was not a necessary party. 5. By way of way the impugned order, learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application so filed by the petitioner. Learned Rent Controller held that the application was filed for impleadment after seven years from the date of filing of the Eviction Petition. It held that the assertions made in the application in fact went on to reveal that since the year 2012, the applicant had never visited the premises, but she visited the same only in the year 2019. It held that the applicant had disclosed her residential address in the demised premises, which in fact were non-residential. Learned Rent Controller also held that in the affidavit, the applicant has mentioned her occupation as a retired employee and all these facts clearly demonstrated that the applicant was not carrying any business in the demised premises alongwith the impleaded respondents. Learned Rent Controller also held that the circumstances suggested that the application was filed malafidely in collusion with the respondent to delay the matter. Learned Court also held that even otherwise when one of the legal heirs of the original tenant had been arrayed as a respondent, the same was sufficient for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. Learned Rent Controller also took note of the fact that a similar application was earlier filed by the sister of the applicant, which stood dismissed. Learned Court also held that even otherwise when one of the legal heirs of the original tenant had been arrayed as a respondent, the same was sufficient for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. Learned Rent Controller also took note of the fact that a similar application was earlier filed by the sister of the applicant, which stood dismissed. On these basis, it held that facts suggested that the application was filed with an intent to delay the matter, rather than for any bonafide reasons. Learned Rent Controller thus dismissed the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit for eviction has been filed by the landlords in the year 2012. It is also not in dispute that the application under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party respondent stood filed by the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller in the month of April, 2019. The reason given in the application to justify as to why the application was not filed earlier is that the applicant was not aware of the pendency of the Eviction Petition and it was just a day before drafting of the application that one of the landlords unintentionally disclosed the factum of the pendency of the Eviction Petition to her when she was in the demised premises. There is nothing on record to substantiate this bald assertion made by the applicant to justify the delay in filing the application. During the course of arguments, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that a similar application filed by the sister of the applicant in the Eviction Petition pending before the learned Rent Controller stood dismissed earlier. 9. A perusal of the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner demonstrates that it stood mentioned in the application that she was a necessary party, as she used to reside in the demised premises during her visits at Shimla. These averments of the applicant in fact create doubt over her bonafides. A perusal of the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner demonstrates that it stood mentioned in the application that she was a necessary party, as she used to reside in the demised premises during her visits at Shimla. These averments of the applicant in fact create doubt over her bonafides. This is for the reason that as the demised premises are non-residential, where commercial activities are being carried out, it is not understood as to how the applicant can state that she has been residing in the demised premises. Similarly, there is nothing on record to demonstrate prima facie that the applicant was carrying business in the demised premises with the original tenant. The affidavit filed in support of the application demonstrates that whereas the applicant has shown demised premises to be her residential address, she has mentioned her occupation in the same as =retired employee'. Similarly, the affidavit which has been filed in support of the present petition, also demonstrates the occupation of the petitioner to be a retired employee. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the application in fact stood filed with an ulterior motive to delay the proceedings and same lacked bonafide. 10. It is settled law that heirs of original tenant succeeded to his tenancy on his death as joint tenants and the tenancy cannot be split as it devolves upon the heirs. Service of Notice of proceedings to one of the tenants is sufficient Notice to all and this position of law was reiterated by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Asha versus Raj Kumar Mehra and others, (2018) 1 SLC 186, in which it has been held as under:- ?24. That apart, the impleadment of the petitioner is not at all necessary because eventually if the eviction petition is found to be bad for want of non-joinder of necessary parties, the landlord would obviously bear the consequences. 25. That apart, the impleadment of the petitioner is not at all necessary because eventually if the eviction petition is found to be bad for want of non-joinder of necessary parties, the landlord would obviously bear the consequences. 25. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlords has sought a direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition expeditiously by relying upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hameed Kunju v. Nazim, 2017 (8) SCC 611 , wherein it has been categorically held that the object of the Rent laws is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction for his bona fide need. 26. Obviously, there can be no quarrel with the aforesaid submission, but taking into consideration the fact that another petition inter se the same landlords and different tenants is already pending adjudication before a coordinate bench of this court, where the trial in the eviction petition has actually been ordered to be stayed, therefore, this Court is not in a position to accede to the request of the learned senior counsel. 27. For the forgoing discussion, I find no merit in this petition and rather find the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner to have been filed with mala fide intention simply in order to delay the outcome of eviction proceeding that has been initiated by the respondent No.1 against the proforma respondent and consequently, dismiss the present revision petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.? 11. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that even otherwise, because there is an objection taken with regard to the maintainability of the eviction petition by the impleaded respondent that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, this issue will be looked into by the learned Rent Controller and in case the issue is decided against the landlords, then consequences will follow. Findings returned by learned Rent Controller that the application lacked bonafide and was filed with the intent of delaying the matter, are duly borne out from the fact that not only there is inordinate delay in filing the application, the same was conspicuously filed after similar application filed by the sister of the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. 12. 12. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.