The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring compliance with legal parameters and does not extend to correcting errors of law or fact.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

Present petition has been filed aggrieved by impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller- I, Solan, District Solan, HP in rent Petition No.23/2 of 2014, titled Pankaj Bansal & Anr. Vs. Surender Kumar & Anr., whereby an application under Order 14 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues has been dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition, documents appended thereto and examined the impugned order.

3. Rent petition, in the case at hand, has been filed on the ground of subletting and bona fide requirement. Issues, in the case at hand, were framed in the year 2015. Subsequent to the framing of the issues, the witnesses of the landlord were examined and even one witness on behalf of the tenant had been examined by the trial Court. At that stage an application was filed for framing of additional issues. The said application was filed on 22.09.2023 i.e. after about 8 years of framing of issues.

4. While deciding a rent petition, the following well-settled principles enumerated by the Apex Court in judgment reported as 2018 (2) SCC 352 , titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. need to be kept in mind. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

11.1 First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.

11.2 Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant’s-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.

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. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal)

11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee).

11.5 Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.