IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord is required to prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the grounds for eviction, and the title to the premises in dispute is not essential for the decision of the eviction suit.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:-

“(a) The impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (Annex-3) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.97/2022 [Chandratan Chandak Vs. M/s Aaradhya Digital Scale] may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(b) The application preferred by the respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of 1908 may kindly be rejected in toto.

(c) The learned Rent Tribunal may kindly be directed to delete the name of respondent No.1/non-applicant No.2 in the array of cause title.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, seeking an injunction against the non-applicant/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed reply to the said application and thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’), 1908, came to be filed by the respondent No.2, claiming himself to be the owner of the said premises in dispute. The petitioner filed reply to the said application while denying the facts stated therein and the learned Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure-3) and being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, has wrongly been allowed, as the newly added respondent was unable to establish the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. He further submits that the original tenant in his reply, has accepted the relationship of the landlord between the petitioner and himself and thus, there was no occasion for the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, to allow the application filed by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has not prayed for any relief against the respondent No.1 and he, being the Dominus Litis of the suit, cannot be compelled to implead respondent No.1 as a party respondent in the suit filed before the learned Tribunal. He also submits that the respondent No.1 has claimed himself to be the owner of the premises in dispute, however, in the petition filed by the petitioner, the title of the premises in dispute, cannot be decided.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 decided on 25.01.2018. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“6. The said application for impleadment made by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Trial Court by order 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) but it was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court against the order of the High Court by the appellants plaintiffs.

7. xxxx

8. xxxx

9. xxxx

10. xxxx

11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra:-

11. 1. xxxx

11. 2 xxxx

11. 3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails.

11. 4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis