Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Lrs of Chandmal Through His Legal Representatives: Smt. Sushila – Appellant
Versus
Tejmal – Respondent
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
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.
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.
In eviction suits, only landlord and tenant are necessary parties, while co-owners do not have a right to join against the plaintiff's wishes, as it alters the nature of the lawsuit.
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 ....
A co-owner's presence is not necessary for a tenant eviction suit, thus the trial court's decision to exclude them is justified.
In eviction proceedings, the question of title is irrelevant; only the landlord-tenant relationship and grounds for eviction matter.
In an eviction suit, the core issue is the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, and the determination of title does not ordinarily arise. The presence of a third party claiming ownership is not....
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
