The court established that a party can be added to a suit if their presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiffs challenging the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Case NO. 67/2004 whereby, the application filed by the applicant respondent no.1 Tejmal under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff chandmal (deceased) filed an application under Section 6 of Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara for eviction of premises and recovery of rent against the defendant kailash Chandra for bonafide necessity of the shop situated at Netaji Subhash Market, Bhupalganj, Bhilwara. The defendant submitted his reply to the application denying the necessity of premises and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

3. During pendency of the suit, the applicant Tejmal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC claiming that he was a necessary party in the suit as the defendant was his tenant and not of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff Chandmal was not the owner of the shop in question. In turn, the petitioner/plaintiffs submitted his reply to the application. It was submitted that the property in question used to be a joint property. After partition of the partnership firm, the said property came in the share of petitioner/plaintiffs by virtue of compromise executed between the applicant Tejmal and Chandmal. Hence, the deceased Chandmal became the owner of property in question. It was also submitted that the applicant was only collecting the rent and merely on the basis of collecting rent, he does not become the owner of the property.

4. Learned Rent Tribunal after considering the facts and the material available on record, allowed the application filed by the applicant Tejmal vide order dated 16.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.D. Chitlangi for the petitioner that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. It is argued that since the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff Chandmal for eviction and recovery of dues of rent, the respondent/applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. Hence, the respondent applicant has no right to compel the plaintiffs to implead him as party respondent in the rent petition. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC ought to have been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. So, the impugned order dated 16.01.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of smt. Shakuntala Devi & anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal & Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur reported in 2011 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 292 and Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. Radheshyam Dan & Ors reported in 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 154 (Raj.)

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent applicant argued that the petitioners have no legal right to initiate any legal proceedings against the respondent tenant before the Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 had earlier preferred eviction petition against the same tenant/respondent no.2 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara regarding same suit premises which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.11.2013. The petitioners preferred appeal against the said judgment passed by learned Rent Tribunal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2015 and the said judgment has now attained finality. Even the respondent no.2/tenant has admitted in the eviction proceedings that he had paid the rent to the respondent no.1 and that rent receipts were also issued to him by the respondent no.1. So far as the compromise decree dat