Jagjit Singh vs Ajit Lal and Another

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-petitioner has prayed for

setting aside the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the appellate authority, Sangrur whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC

(in short ""the Code"") was dismissed. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision may be noticed. Charanjit Singh son of Jang

Singh filed a rent petition against tenant Ajit Lal. The said petition was contested by filing a reply by the tenant. The Rent Controller vide order

dated 23.3.2004 accepted the petition on the ground of non-payment. The tenant filed an appeal against the ejectment order dated 23.3.2004

before the appellate authority, Sangrur. During the pendency of the said appeal, applicant Jagjit Singh son of Jang Singh (brother of Charanjit

Singh) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded as a party. The appellate authority vide order dated

15.12.2004 dismissed the said application holding that the applicant was not a necessary party. Hence, the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that the applicant was a co-sharer with his brother Charanjit Singh and, therefore, he was

proper and necessary party and the appellate authority had erred in declining the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.

Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that in case the

applicant had any right, he could file a separate suit. However, denying the applicant-petitioner being a co-sharer, it was submitted that it was

collusion between the applicant and the tenant and the applicant was neither a proper nor necessary party. Reliance was placed upon the following

observations of the appellate authority:--

Before the learned Rent Controller, the Rent Application tiled ''Charanjit Singh v. Ajit Lal had been filed on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Charanjit Singh claimed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent, Ajit Lal. Now vide application u/o. 1 Rule 10

CPC dt. 12.10.2004, Jagjit Singh has contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between Charanjit Singh and Ajit Lal,

but in fact the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the applicant, Jagjit Singh and appellant Ajit Lal. Further he has since received

from the tenant, Ajit Lal rent of the demised premises upto 29.9.2001 and has also received from the appellant/tenant, Ajit Lal possession of the

demised premises. The contentions of the applicant Jagjit Singh show a collusion between appellant, Ajit Lal and the applicant Jagjit Singh. If on

29.9.2001 the applicant Jagjit Singh took vacant possession of the demised premises from the tenant Ajit Lal, appellant what prompted the

appellant Ajit Lal to file this Rent Appeal. In these rent proceedings/appeal, the only question to be seen is whether the relationship of landlord and

tenant between the appellant Ajit Lal and respondent Charanjit Singh does or does not exist?

Support was also drawn from the judgments in Smt. Krishna and Another Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and Another, , Subhash Chander and Others

Vs. Baij Nath Aggarwal and Others, Anil Kumar Vs. Chaudhary Ram and Others, Lachhman Dass Vs. Sham Lal and Another, , Inder Lal Vs.

Babu Lal and Others, and Kiran Kumar Bansal Vs. Kusum Bansal

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Order 1 Rule 10 of the

Code reads thus:--

Order I Rule 10.--(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been

instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide

mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as

plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add parties- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and

on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be

struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court

may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be

added.

(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended- Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be amended in

such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the court

thinks fit, on the original defendant.

(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as

defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others, , after considering the earlier

pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court had reiterated the following broad principles to be followed while adjudicating the issue of

impleadment of a party to the proceedings, which reads thus:--

The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as

parry, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete

adjudication of the issues involved in the Suit.

A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the Suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the

Court.

A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and

issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.

If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes

of the Plaintiff.

In a Suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files Application

for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. However, if the applicant is guilty of

contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the

restraint order passed by the Court or the Application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for

impleadment.

In the present case, the applicant claims to be co-owner which fact has been controverted by respondent No. 2. The landlord-respondent No.

2 has filed an ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent No. 1 on the ground of non-payment of rent which was accepted by the Rent

Controller. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been filed by

the applicant-petitioner claiming himself to be co-owner of the property. The proceedings before the Rent Controller are not relating to the

question of title in the demised premises and in case the petitioner claims to be the co-owner, he can get his right settled by filing a separate suit. In

such circumstances, the applicant cannot be held to be either proper or necessary party.

Identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Kiran Kumar Bansal''s case (supra) where in the rent petition, an application was

filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code by the applicant therein claiming himself to be the co-owner, it was held as under:--

Co-owner/owner is not a necessary petitioner to a petition for eviction, more particularly when the petition can be filed even by a landlord like

seeking eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. If there is a dispute between the co-owners, they are obviously free to take recourse to

remedies available under the civil law....

In Anil Kumar''s case (supra), under similar circumstances, an application was filed for being impleaded as a party claiming to be the co-owner,

wherein it was noticed as under:--

...Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. an applicant can be impleaded as a party even against the wishes of the plaintiff if he is neither a necessary or a

proper party and in the absence of whom, the matter in controversy cannot be effectively disposed of. It is the view of this Court that the plaintiff is

the master of his suit and no person can be added as a party against his wishes unless the Court comes to the conclusion that presence of the

applicant is necessary for proper disposal of the lis and to resolve the controversy between the parties more effectively. In the case in hand, the

applicants claim that they are owners, may be they are so, but can in the facts and circumstances of this case be said that they are necessary or

even proper parties. If they are landlords qua Chaudhary Ram, they can also file ejectment petition against him. Even otherwise, one co-owner can

maintain a petition for ejectment against a tenant. If there is a dispute about the 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. It is thus, open to the applicants to take any other step to establish

their right, title or interest in the premises in dispute after impleading proper parties, who claim interest adverse to them,'' as in the rent petition the

only dispute at the most would be which could be and that to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between Anil Kumar son of

Banarsi Dass and Chaudhary Ram.

The judgments of this Court in Smt. Krishna, Subhash Chander, Lachhman Dass and Inder Lal''s cases (supra) also support the case of

respondent No. 2.

In view of the above, in the absence of the applicant being a necessary or proper party, the appellate authority was right in dismissing the

application. Thus, no fault could be found with the findings recorded by the appellate authority.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the appellate authority is directed to

conclude/decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.