Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 23 (UTT)

Benu Rana v. Vikkal Rathi

2023-01-06

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - A SCC Suit (No.05 of 2017, 'Vikkal Rathi vs. Praveen Sachdeva') has been filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff against the respondent no.2-defendant. In the said SCC Suit, an application for impleadment was filed by the present revisionist and the proforma respondent no.3-applicants. On 07.01.2021, the said impleadment application has been dismissed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Haridwar. Hence, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 2. Heard Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-plaintiff. 3. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate submitted that the revisionist is the owner of the suit property. Therefore, the revisionist is a proper and necessary party to decide the said SCC Suit. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate opposed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and submitted that in the said SCC Suit, the respondent no.2-defendant has admitted his tenancy, and, an Original Suit No.32 of 2015, filed by the present revisionist regarding the title, is pending before the competent civil court. Therefore, the revisionist is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said SCC Suit. 5. A 'necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective order can be passed by the Court and a 'proper party' is a party who though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence is considered appropriate for effective decision of the case. 6. In 'Kanaklata Das and Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others', (2018) 2 SCC 352 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down the following principles:- '11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2. Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2. Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff landlord has sought defendant tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, the eviction suit succeeds. 11. 3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal). 11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See- Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee). 11.5. (See- Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee). 11.5. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See- Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue). 11. 6. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See- Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan).' 7. In Kanaklata Das and Others (Supra), the fact was that the appellants had filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent nos. 2 to 5 before the Small Cause Court for their eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, and bona fide need of the suit premises for their personal use. Respondent no.1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code praying therein that he may be allowed to become the co-plaintiff along with the appellants. Respondent no.1 sought his impleadment alleging that he is a member of the appellants' family and being so, has a right, title and interest not only in the suit premises but also in other family properties as one of the co-owners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the lis in the suit is between the appellants on the one hand and respondents 2 to 5 on the other hand and the decision in the suit would depend upon the question as to whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 in relation to the suit premises and, if so, whether the grounds pleaded in the plaint for claiming eviction of respondents 2 to 5 are established or not. For deciding these two main questions, the presence of respondent 1 is not necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the respondent 1 is neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the suit. 8. It is well settled that in an eviction suit, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties. In an eviction suit, filed by the landlord, title of ownership of the landlord is not relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the respondent 1 is neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the suit. 8. It is well settled that in an eviction suit, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties. In an eviction suit, filed by the landlord, title of ownership of the landlord is not relevant. When a person is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and his presence is not required for any complete and effective adjudication of the question involved in the matter, he cannot be impleaded merely because he wishes so. 9. This Court is clearly of the opinion that the order dated 07.01.2021 has been passed in accordance with law. Therefore, the said order cannot be interfered by this Court. Present Civil Revision (No.15 of 2021) is hereby dismissed. 10. There will be no order as to costs.