In a suit for eviction, the court is required to see the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the issue of ownership is not germane to the suit. Impleadment of a party should not be allowed if it leads to enlarging the scope of inquiry in a suit.

1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kishangarh, District Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and has directed for impleadment of the Municipal Council, Kishangarh as a defendant in the suit, the petitioners have approached this court.

2. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the issue of ownership is not germane to a suit for eviction. In fact, what is essential is existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In order to buttress this plea, the learned senior counsel has relied on the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [(1995) 6 SCC 580] and on the case of Vimla Devi v. Nand Lal [1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 53].

3. Secondly, even if part of the open land, lying in front of the shop in question belonged to the Municipal Council, Kishangarh, even then such a situation would not have made the Municipal Council a necessary party to the suit. For, the court is merely required to see the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants.

4. Thirdly, since the Municipal Council has not filed any application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, since the said application has been filed by the respondents-defendants, the said application should not have been allowed. For, it is not the case of the Municipal Council that their rights or interests might be adversely affected by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

5. Fourthly, impleadment of a party should not be allowed if it is going to enlarge the scope of the suit. In order to buttress this plea, the learned senior counsel has relied on the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh (supra) and on the case of Vimla Devi (supra). Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is an arbitrary one, which deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mahendra Shah, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, has strenuously contended that in the plaint, the size of the shop in question is unclear. For, according to Para-1 of the plaint, in new Plot No.12/3 there is a shop measuring 4'x15'. However, beyond the shop there is an empty space namely a 'Varandah'. Thus, it is unclear whether the shop area also includes the 'Varandah' or not? Moreover, the 'Varandah' is an open area under a tin-shed and actually belongs to the Municipal Council, Kishangarh. According to the respondents-defendants, they have been in possession of the 'Varandah' for the last sixty years. Thus, in case the petitioners seek to evict the respondents from the open area which belongs to the Municipal Council, naturally the Municipal Council has to be impleaded as a party defendant.

7. In rebuttal, Mr. Agrawal has initially pleaded that the shop area is only 4'x15'. However as he was unclear whether the 'Varandah' is included or not, he sought time to seek instruction from his party. Subsequently he informed this court that the shop area does, indeed, includes the 'Varandah' which is 15'x15'. However, according to him, this open area has been transferred by the Municipal Council to the petitioners through a ninety-nine years lease on 27.12.2012. Hence, presently, the petitioners happen to be the owner of the said open area. Hence, they have a right to seek eviction of the respondents-defendants from the said area.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order and considered the case laws cited at the Bar.

9. In the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh (supra), the Apex Court had opined as under:-

9. It may be pointed out that it is well-settled law that the question of title of the property is not germane for decision of the eviction suit. In a case where a plaintiff institutes a suit for eviction of his tenant based on the relationship of th