Back
1981 Supreme(Raj) 301
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Bodha, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Shiv Rattan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 15 of 1981.
Decided On : 15-04-1981
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.C. Bhandari, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. G.R. Singhvi, for non petitioner No. 1.
A sub-tenant is not a necessary or proper party to a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Headnote:
ORDER 1 RULE 10 C.P.C. - IMPLEADING PARTIES - ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) C.P.C. - NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTIES - SECTION 13(1)(H) RAJASTHAN PREMISES (EVICTION OF TENANTS) ACT, 1950 - EVICTION OF TENANTS - SECTION 3(VII) RAJASTHAN PREMISES (EVICTION OF TENANTS) ACT, 1950 - DEFINITION OF TENANT - SECTION 14(1) PROVISO (B), SECTIONS 18 AND 28 DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958 - RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PREMISES - SECTION 25 DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958 - VACANT POSSESSION TO LANDLORD - ORDER 1 RULE 10 ORDER 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - ADDITION OF PARTIES - SECTION 115 C.P.C. - REVISION - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sub-tenant, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the landlord against the tenant. The petitioner claimed that his presence was necessary for completely and effectually determining the questions involved in the suit. The Additional Munsif dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the petitioner could not be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party to the suit and that the Additional Munsif had not failed to exercise jurisdiction in declining to add the petitioner as a party to the suit. The court noted that the petitioner had no right to be impleaded as a party in the suit and that his application was rightly dismissed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, a sub-tenant, was a necessary or proper party to the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party to the suit because: * The petitioner had no independent title to the premises. * The petitioner was not entitled to take steps to resist the decree for ejectment on the grounds that he had acquired the statutory right or protection which he could assert against the tenant, or that the decree was obtained by fraud or collusion. * The petitioner was not entitled to be heard to oppose the order for eviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's Rule, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit.
The learned Additional Munsif held that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff and dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner got the Rule issued praying that his application should be allowed and he should be impleaded as a party to the suit. On behalf of non-petitioner No. 1, Mr. G.R. Singhvi has appeared. He has produced the copy of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., which has been placed on record.
"The plaintiff being generally dominus litus, he can't compelled to right against some other litigant not of his own choice unless such a process is required by a positive rules of law. Order 1, Rule 10(2) is applicable to two classes of cases only. One class is where he ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or a defendant and is not so joined. That is a case of a necessary party. The other class is where without his presence the question in the suit cannot be effectually and completely decided."
"The Court has no power to join a person as a party who claims to belong to this class unless it is prima facie satisfied about the plausibility of his claim. Rule 10(2) cannot be read as requiring all persons who choose to lay claim to any sort of right, title or interest in respect of any portion of the subject matter of a suit to be made a party."
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises XVII of 950) (for short 'the Act' here after deals with eviction of tenants. Under Section 3(vii) of the Act, the 'tenant' has been defined as under :
"tenant" means -
(a) the person by whom or on whose account of behalf rent is, or but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and
(b) in the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub-clause (a), his surviving spouse, son daughter and other heir in acc
