Lachhman Dass vs Sham Lal and Another

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Petitioner has filed this revision against the trial Court''s order dated 29.3.1996, whereby his petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC is declined.

Factual matrix of the case is that the suit property was owned by Vidya Wati. After her death since 1978 tenant Sukhbir Singh is paying rent to Sham Lal respondent. Sham Lal filed a civil suit for partition against Lachhman Dass petitioner and his brother Radhey Sham which was dismissed on 4.6.1994 wherein it is held that Lachhman Dass and Radhey Sham are owners of the property left by their father on account of the will dated 12.10.1969. After dismissal of this civil suit respondent Sham Lal aggrieved by this decree, has filed an appeal which is still pending. Petitioner Lachhman Dass filed a rent petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh, wherein he claimed the rent from 1.5.1988 to 31.12.1988 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. As the tenant paid the entire rent with house tax, the petition was got dismissed. Petitioner Lachhman Dass has also filed another ejectment petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh wherein he has claimed rent from 1.1.1989 to 30.04.1993 which is still pending. Respondent Sham Lal has filed an ejectment petition against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh wherein he has claimed rental arrears from 1.10.1993 to 30.09.1994. During the pendency of this rent petition, petitioner filed an application under Order, 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleading him as respondent therein alleging that he is real landlord qua the demise premises qua tenant Sukhbir Singh. Therefore, he is necessary party to the petition . It is also alleged that to decide the controversy finally between the parties and with a view not to drive him to another litigation, it is necessary that he should be impleaded as respondent in that rent petition case filed by Sham Lal against respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh.

The trial Court dismissed the impleadment petition filed by Lachhman Dass by the impugned order holding that Lachhman Dass cannot be impleaded as a party in these ejectment proceedings. In case he claims to be "landlord qua Sukhbir Singh-tenant either he should file an ejectment petition or approach the Civil Court to get declaration to that effect. He has relied on Ram Parkash v. Gurdev Kaur 1995 HRR 67.

Petitioner''s learned counsel, relying on Ved Kumar Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Bhati and Others, and Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan Vs. Shammi Kumar, , contended that since Sham Lal as well as petitioner Lachhman Dass are claiming to be the landlords qua tenant Sukhbir Singh hence, the petitioner Lachhman Dass should be allowed to be impleaded in the rent petition which is filed by respondent Sham Lal against the respondent-tenant Sukhbir Singh so that the matter in controversy may be conclusively decided between the parties. He also pointed out that earlier Sham Lal filed a civil suit for partition and possession of certain properties left by the father of petitioners Lachhman Dass, which was dismissed on 4.6.199 holding that the petitioner Lachhman Dass and his brother are owners of the said property on the basis of the Will dated 12.10.196? Thus, according to him by Civil Court''s decree, petitioner Lachhman Dass and his brother are held to be the owners of the disputed property. Therefore, petitioner is a necessary party in the said rent petition.

So far as the above authorities Ved Kumar and Sudarshan Kumar (supra) are concerned, they lay down that to enable the Court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of suits, petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, should be allowed and such a party should not be relegated to the position seeking redress by filing a separate suit. The facts of both these judgments are distinguishable.

So far as facts of Janki Devi''s case (supra) are concerned, rent petition was filed by certain heirs of the deceased landlord leaving other heirs, who had a right to receive a share of the rent of the demised premises being co-owners of the property. Therefore, when such co-owners filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, the petition was allowed.

In this case, two claimants, Lachhman Dass and Sham Lal, claiming themselves to be the landlords of the demised premises quo Sukhbir Singh are filing rent petitions against Sukhbir Singh independently. Petitioner Lachhman Dass earlier filed an ejectment petition against Sukhbir Singh wherein he claimed rent from 1.5.1988 to 31.12.198. As the tenant paid the rent, the petition was got dismissed. He has filed another rent petition against the tenant Sukhbir Singh, wherein he has claimed rent from 1.1.1989 to 30.4.1993. After the decision of the said civil suit, Sham Lal has filed an ejectment petition against Sukhbir Singh wherein he has claimed rent from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. The tenant Sukhbir Singh has admitted him to be his landlord. If he pays rent to Sham Lal and if ultimately, it is held that Lachhman Dass petitioner is the owner/landlord of the demised premises, tenant Sukhbir Singh has to pay rent to Lachhman Dass again as he will not get the valid discharge so far as the claim of payment of rental an-ears is concerned. No doubt, it is alleged by the petitioner that Sham Lal filed a civil suit against Lachhman Dass and his brother for partition and possession of the disputed property along with other properties, the suit was dismissed. In that suit, there is a finding that Lachhman Dass and his brother are owners of the disputed property. It is also averred that Sham Lal has filed an appeal against that judgment and decree, which is still pending.

Rent petition can be filed by the person, who claims himself to be the landlord of the disputed premises. The landlord may not be the owner but if he is entitled to recover rent from the tenant, he is entitled to file an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. If any other person wants to get his tide enquired into and decided in such a rent petition, he cannot be allowed to do so. See Kishan Lal v. Vazir 1985 HRR 67.

Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court has not fallen into any error in rejecting the petitioner''s impleadment petition. It cannot be said that the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in an illegal manner.

Accordingly, revision petition, being meritless, is hereby dismissed.