IMPORTANT POINT
In a tenancy suit, only the landlord and the tenant are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, and the impleading of remaining legal representatives may not be necessary.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Fresh’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and by an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 (Annex 6) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand be ordered to be quashed and set-aside and the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as a whole. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

3. The respondent no. 1 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the basis of bona-fide and reasonable necessity of the rented premises and also on the basis of default in rent.

4. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for his impleadment in the eviction proceedings on the ground that a suit for partition with respect to the properties of the father of the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No.1 has been pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rajsamand and the present suit property on which the petitioner is a tenant, is also a subject matter of the said partition suit.

5. The petitioner has opposed the impleadment application of the respondent No. 2 however, the Learned Rent Tribunal allowed the same vide order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure-3).

6. During the pendency of the rent proceedings, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the averments that the legal representatives of the father of the Rent Petitioner, namely, Shri Madhavlal, are necessary parties to the proceedings which was subsequently rejected by the Learned Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as Learned Court below) vide order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-6).

7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Learned Court below dated 22.07.2022 has preferred a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner have submitted that the Rent Tribunal has committed error by dismissing the impleadment application of the petitioner as the remaining legal representatives of the original landlord Madhav Lal are necessary parties to the proceedings and the partition suit remains pending between the respondent No. 1 and the other legal representatives. He also submitted that the rent amount was paid to the owner Madhavlal during his lifetime.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that vide order dated 14.02.2013 the learned court below has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by one of the legal representatives of deceased Madhavlal, i.e. respondent No. 2, thus the court below has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in respect to impleadment of the remaining other legal representatives.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Hari Kishan Modi v. Smt. Santosh [SB Civil Writ Petition 5870 of 2007, decided on 12.03.2008]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“3. It is submitted that since the proceedings of partition are pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner alone cannot file a suit for getting the possession of the shop in question as there are many other share holders of the property and if the suit is decided without impleading him as respondent then all the share holders will suffer irre