Samir Kumar Adhikari vs Souvik Hazra & Anr.

The subject matter of challenge in this reviisional application is the order no. 25 dated September 09, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 12987 of 2014 (originally numbered as Title Suit No. 145 of 2013) on the application of the opposite party no. 2 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code"). By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the said application and added the opposite party no. 2 as a defendant in the said suit.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the revisional application are that the revisional petitioner filed the said suit against the opposite party no. 1 claiming, inter alia, a declaration that he is the monthly tenant in respect of the suit property, a declaration that the opposite party no. 1 has no right to evict him from the suit property without due course of law and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the opposite party no. 1 from creating any disturbance in his peaceful possession of the suit property. The opposite party no. 1, the owner of the suit property is contesting the said suit. In his written statement, the opposite party no. 1 denied the plaintiff petitioner to be his tenant in respect of the suit property or that he received any rent from the plaintiff petitioner. The defendant opposite party no. 1 alleged that one Ansuman Chatterjee is his tenant in respect of the suit property. The said Angsuman Chatterjee, that is, the opposite party no. 2 in this application filed an application for his impleadment as a party defendant in the suit. In his application, the opposite party no. 2 claimed that he is the tenant in respect of the suit property under the defendant opposite party no. 1, he has already filed a suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 2014, before the same learned Court below, against the plaintiff petitioner claiming a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property and in order to determine the real question in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding he should be impleaded as the defendant no. 2 in the said suit. The plaintiff petitioner opposed the said application. By the order dated September 09, 2016 the learned Court below allowed the said application of the opposite party no. 2 and added him as the defendant no. 2 in the said suit. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated September 09, 2016 passed by the learned Court below which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application.

Assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the defendant petitioner submitted that in this case the petitioner has filed the said suit claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of the suit property under the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 could not be added as a defendant in the said suit. In this connection, Mr. Chatterjee relied on the Single Bench decision of this Court delivered by G.N. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of B.K. Dutta vs. Nita Madan reported in AIR 1984 Cal 228.

However, opposing the revisional application on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 Mr. Shubhayu Roy, learned advocate vehemently urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is a well-reasoned order suffering from no infirmity and there is no merit in the revisional application. He submitted that in the written statement the opposite party no. 1 specifically denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself and it is the opposite party no. 2 who is the tenant in respect of the suit property. He further submitted that in his application for addition of party the opposite party no. 2 asserted that he himself is the tenant in respect of the suit property under the opposite party no. 1 and that he has already instituted a suit against petitioner, before the learned Court below for recovery of possession of the suit property. He urged that it is settled law that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, a person though not a necessary party to the suit, may be impleaded in the suit if his presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicated upon the matters in dispute in a suit. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that the finding of the learned Court below in the impugned order that any order passed in the said suit would directly affect the interest of the opposite party no. 2 in respect of the suit property suffers from no infirmity of law calling for any interference by this Court in excise of revisional jurisdiction. According to him, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B.K. Dutta (supra) has no application in the case in hand.

I have considered the materials on record and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel appearing for the defendant petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, respectively. In the present case, on the respective pleadings of the opposite party and the defendant petitioner it is quite obvious to me, that the issue involved in the said suit is whether the defendant petitioner is a tenant in respect of the suit property directly under the opposite party no. 1 or under the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Roy is justified in his contention that the presence of the opposite party no. 2 may be necessary in order to enable the learned Court below to effectively, completely adjudicated upon and settled the question involved in the suit.

In the case of B.K. Dutta (supra) it was the husband of the defendant in the eviction suit who claimed an independent right of tenancy in respect of the suit property when the defendant tenant herself did not raise any contention in her pleadings that she was not the tenant of the suit premises, but her husband was the tenant. Accordingly, in the said case it was held that the application of the husband of the defendant tenant under Order I Rule 10 for his impleadment of the eviction suit was not allowed. Thus, Mr. Roy was correct in his submission that the said decision in the case of B.K. Dutta (supra) has no application in the present case.

Considering the averments made by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 in the respective pleadings before the learned Court below, it is clear that one of the issues involved in the said suit which is to be adjudicated by the learned Court below is whether the petitioner or the opposite party no. 2, namely Angsuman Chatterjee is the tenant of the defendant opposite party no. 1 in respect of the suit property.

For the foregoing reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below to be interfered by this Court.

Accordingly, the revisional application being C.O. 4333 of 2016 stands dismissed.

However, before parting with the revisional application it may be noted that by an order passed today in C.O. 4332 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, I have upheld the impleadment of the opposite party no. 1 of this revisional application in Title Suit No. 14741 of 2014. Therefore, it is expedient that both the suits, being Title Suit No. 145 of 2013 and Title Suit No. 14741 of 2014, involving the same suit property, pending before the learned Court below should be heard analogously. Accordingly, the learned Court below is directed to dispose of both the suits, being Title Suit No. 145 of 2013 and Title Suit No. 14741 of 2014 be disposed of by way of analogous hearing.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.