Meenal vs Paramakudi Vaniya Uravinmuraiyalargalin

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides

The revision petitioners filed the suit O.S. No. 89 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, for injunction restraining the 3rd

respondent herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the revision petitioner is that the property

belongs to Paramakudi Vaniya Uravinmuraiyalargalin Pothu Sabai, the first respondent herein and her husband was a tenant of that property and

he was residing in one portion and was running a hotel in another portion of the suit property and after his death, the revision petitioner continued to

reside in the first item of the property and was having a hotel in the 2nd item of the property and the property in the 2nd item where she was

running hotel had fallen down due to heavy rain and she was not in a position to run the hotel and the 3rd respondent, who was the defendant in the

suit attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, she filed a suit for injunction.

The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the claim of the plaintiff/revision petitioner and he also admitted that the properties belongs to the

first respondent''s Sabai and according to him, the first item of the property was leased out to his wife Nagajothi by the Sabai on 14.06.2006 and

the revision petitioner/plaintiff and her son and daughter-in-law were allowed to occupy the first item of the property by the 3rd respondent till

01.03.2007 and thereafter, the revision petitioner refused to vacate the said property and has filed the suit as if she is the tenant of the property.

During the pendency of the suit, Paramakudi Vaniyar Uravinmuraiyalargalin Pothu Sabai, represented by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed

I.A. No. 308 of 2008 to implead themselves as parties to the suit stating that they are the owners of the suit property and the property was

originally leased out to the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner vacated and handed-over the vacant possession to the Sabai and

thereafter, the suit property was leased out to Palanisamy s/o. Karpuram Chettiar and also to Nagajothi, wife of the 3rd respondent herein and

without impleading the proper persons, who are in possession of the property, the suit was filed by the revision petitioner in collusion with the 3rd

respondent and therefore, the Sabai is necessary party and they are to be impleaded.

The revision petitioner filed counter stating that during the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he found that the

revision petitioner is in possession of the suit property and the Sabai in collusion with the 3rd respondent is attempting to interfere with the

possession of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner has not disputed the title of the Sabai in respect of the suit property and she only

claimed that she is a tenant under Sabai and therefore, the Sabai is not necessary party to the suit.

The learned District Munsif allowed the application holding that the Sabai is necessary party to give a finding whether the suit filed by the

revision petitioner can be decreed or not and only during trial, it can be decided whether the 3rd respondent is in possession or the revision

petitioner is in possession of the property and therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 are necessary parties to the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this civil

revision petition is filed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr. Yogesh relied upon the judgment reported in S. Krishnan Vs. Rathinavel Naicker

and Others, (1) CTC 473 in the case of Desekar and Anr. v. D. Babu and 2 Ors., and submitted that as the revision petitioner did not dispute the

title of the Sabai, and the case of the revision petitioner is that her husband was given lease and after his death, she is continuing the lease and she is

in possession and her possession is disturbed by the 3rd respondent and therefore, there is no need to implead the Sabai, who is admittedly the

owner of the property.

He further submitted that as held by this Court in the judgment reported in 2001 (1) CTC 473, in the case of Desekar and Anr. v. D. Baby and

2 others, in a suit for injunction where there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the property, the owner of the property is not a necessary

property to the suit as no relief is claimed against him and therefore, the Sabai is not a necessary party.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Sabai viz., the respondents 1 and 2 Mr. A. Arumugam submitted that even though the title of

the Sabai is not disputed, the property was leased out to the wife of the 3rd respondent and one Palanisamy S/o. Karpuram Chettiar by the Sabai

and to defeat their right, the suit was filed in collusion with the 3rd respondent and being the owner of the property, the Sabai is interested in

protecting the interest of the property and therefore, the Sabai is a necessary party to the suit. He also relied upon the judgment reported in M/s.

Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and others, in the case of Alij Momonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Ors.

I have given my anxious consideration the submissions made by both the counsels.

In this case, admittedly the Sabai represented by the respondents 1 and 2, is the owner of the property. The revision petitioner claims to be the

lessee of the entire property having obtained the lease from the Sabai and the Sabai filed the petition to implead stating that the property was

originally leased to the revision petitioner and she surrendered and handed over the possession to the Sabai and thereafter, the property was leased

out to Palanisamy S/o. Karpuram Chettiar and Nagajothi, the wife of the 3rd respondent and to defeat the right of the properties, who are tenants

under the Sabai, the suit was filed. Therefore, in this case, it has to be decided who is the tenant under the Sabai entitled to injunction as prayed

for.

In this case, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is relevant to

decide the issue. In the case, before the Honourable Supreme Court the tenant filed a suit for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from

demolishing a portion of the building on the ground of unauthorised constructions. In that suit, the landlord filed application under Order 1 Rule 10

CPC, to implead him one of the parties to the suit and that was allowed and the same was challenged by the plaintiff/tenant. In that case, the

Honourable Supreme has held as follows; ""Where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the

dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party. Necessary party is one without whose presence no effective and complete adjudication of

the dispute could be made and no relief granted. The landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the demised building before the demolition of

which notice u/s 351 was issued. In the event of its demolition, his rights would materially be affected. His right, title and interest in the property

demised to the tenant or licensee would be in jeopardy. It may be that the construction which is sought to be demolished by the Municipal

Corporation was made with or without the consent of the landlord of the lessor. But the demolition would undoubtedly materially affect the right,

title and interest in the property of the landlord. Under those circumstances, the landlord is necessarily a proper party, though the relief is sought for

against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolition of the building. In this context the

question whether the respondent-landlord had only commercial interest in the property would not arise.

Therefore, following the above judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, in this case also I hold that the respondents 1 and 2 are necessary

and proper parties and the lower Court has correctly allowed the application to implead the parties. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere

with the order of the lower Court and accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed. No costs.