Md. Yasin vs Abdul Qayum and Others

P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.—The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction u/s 11 of the Bihar Buildings {Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act against the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that they had let the defendant into possession of the building as a tenant. The defendant filed a written statement denying the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant set up a case that the title to the building vested in his father-in-law.

At this stage, the father-in-law of the defendant purported to come forward with an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking his impleading. Apparently, he wanted to claim an indefeasible title over the building. The trial Court taking note of the nature of the suit and the relief prayed for, rejected the application. That order is challenged in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Haitians Singh v. E.R. Srinivasan AIR 1979 Del 171 to contend that when a plaintiff seeks to file a suit against another person with a view to procure a decree by having, what could be called shadow boxing, the Court always has a discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead a stranger to the suit who claims rights in himself. In the same decision, it is noted that the impleading of a stranger would save him from the expenses in filing a separate suit for establishing his right. In a suit u/s 11 of the Act, as now it is well recognized, the question of title cannot be finally decided. In that situation, the title sought to be set up by the petitioner before me, appears to be foreign to the scope of the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has acted illegally or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, in not allowing the application for impleading made by a stranger to the suit. As observed by the Supreme Court, the question of impleading is not one of initial jurisdiction but it is one of exercise of judicial discretion. In the case of hand, considering the nature of the plaint and the relief claimed therein, it cannot be said that the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably by the trial Court justifying interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I dismiss the application.