Inder Lal vs Babu Lal and Others

Arun B. Saharaya, C.J.—This is a revision petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 9.2.1992 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, allowing the application of Babu Lal under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code of Criminal Procedure and impieading him as a respondent in the eviction proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the tenant Ghanshayam Dass (respondent No. 2) for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute (hereinafter referred to as "building").

Babu Lal died on 28.5.1993 during the pendency of the revision petition and his legal representatives were brought on record in his place as respondent No. 1.

The petitioner had filed the application for eviction of the tenant Ghanshayam Dass on the ground of non-payment of rent u/s 13(2)(1) of the Act. He claimed to be the landlord in respect of the building on the basis of a will made in his favour by Bhagwati Devi, who was his father''s sister. Bhagwati Devi had let out the building to the tenant and she was recovering the rent during her life time. She died on 7.1.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the ejectment application against the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1991 upto 31.12.1991.

Babu Lal claimed that he was the real brother of the deceased husband of Bhagwati Devi, that she held only a limited interest in the property in lieu of maintenance and had no right to execute the will, and that after the death he became the owner and landlord of the building in dispute. On these facts, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Janki Devi and Ors. v. Tara Chand and Ors. 1984 H.R.R. 468, the learned Rent Controller held that Babu Lal was entitled to be impleaded as a party.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that Babu Lal was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the proceedings for eviction of the tenant-respondent. The challenge is well found upon two decisions of this Court, in the case of Subhash Chander and Others Vs. Baij Nath Aggarwal and Others, and Anil Kumar Vs. Chaudhary Ram and Others, .

There is no dispute on the basic fact that the building was let out by Bhagwati Devi to the respondent-tenant and that she was entitled to recover the rent. The facturn of execution of the will by Bhagwati Devi in favour of Inder Lal is also not in dispute. But, Babu Lal has questioned the right of Bhagwati Devi to make the will. He has set up a rival claim as the landlord on the basis of title alleged to have been derived by him on succession through the pre-deceased husband of Bhagwati Devi, after her death. Thus, there is a conflict of title inter se Babu Lal and Inder Lal, each of them claiming to be the landlord in respect of the building.

The petitioner was the master of his application for ejectment of the respondent-tenant and no one else would be added as a party unless it is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. In the eviction petition, the question involved at the most would be as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between Inder Lal and Ghanshyam Dass. In other words on the basis of pleadings of respective parties, the question for decision before the Rent Controller would be whether Inder Lal- the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant from the building in dispute. If the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between Inder Lal and Ghanshayam Dass is established, then and then alone he would succeed in the eviction petition. Otherwise he would fail.

Moreover, the dispute between Babu Lal and Inder Lal in respect of title to the building cannot be decided in the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller, who, unlike a civil court, has very limited jurisdiction under the Act. Indeed, impleadment of Babu Lal would raise extraneous questions far beyond the scope of the trial in the eviction application under the Act.

Since, it is not relevant, at this stage, I would not go into the plea urged on behalf of the petitioner that Bhagwati Devi held the property as full owner thereof u/s 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Suffice it to say that Babu Lal''s right, title or interest, if any, in respect of the building will in no way be effected by adjudication of the eviction application filed by Inder Lal against the tenant Ghanshayam Dass.

In the case of Janki Devi (supra), it was found that the person who had applied for joining the eviction proceedings as a party was also an heir of the deceased owner and clearly entitled lo receive a share of rent from the tenant. At best, that was a case of a co-owner who was allowed to join the eviction proceedings as a party to receive her share of rent from the tenant. In the present case, conflicting title was sought to be set up by Babu Lal against Inder Lal in respect of the building and also the right to receive rent from the tenant Ghanshayam Dass. The judgment in that case was not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance upon it by the learned Rent Controller was wholly misplaced.

On the other hand, in the case of Subhash Chander and others (supra), it was held that the right of the person setting up a rival claim as landlord in proceedings for ejectment of a tenant will in no way be effected if he is not impleaded as a party and such a person can take appropriate proceedings where his claim may be adjudicated upon effectively. Further, in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), it was held that if there is a dispute about title between the parties it cannot be settled in a rent petition but has to be settled in a regular suit which may be filed by one or the other party and that the rent petition cannot be permitted to be converted into a petition for determination of title.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 9.3.1992 passed by the learned Rent Controller does not satisfy the lest of legality and propriety. Therefore, it is set aside and the application filed by Babu Lal for being impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings is dismissed. Consequently, further proceedings in the eviction application filed by Inder Lal will continue with Ghanshayam Dass as to sole respondent.

Parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, Narnaul, for further direction on 23.3.1998.

The revision petition is allowed with costs.