In a suit for recovery of rent, a third party claiming title to the property in respect of which rent is claimed is not a necessary party, and the suit should not be converted into a complicated title suit.

JUDGMENT :

Misra, J. - In Original Suit No. 3 of 1933 (III) in the Court of the Munsif, Khurda, opposite party-l (Plaintiff) brought a suit for arrears of rent against Defendants 1 to 3 as tenants. Petitioner Gagan Behari Patnaik, who is not a party to that suit filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2), CPC Code, for being implicated as a party on the allegation that the disputed house in respect of which rent was being claimed belonged to him and not to the Plaintiff. This petition was rejected. The Civil Revision has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif. It is to be noted that the Petitioner has filed Original Suit No. 86 of 1960 in the same Court for a declaration that he is the real owner of the suit house and some other properties and the Plaintiff is merely a Benamidar. Petitioner's case that he is a necessary party to the suit and that the multiplicity, the suits will be avoided if his title to the disputed house is decided in this suit.

2. Order 1, Rule 10(2) lays down that the name of any person who ought to have joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The point for consideration is whether in a suit for recovery of rent by the landlord, a third party claiming title to the property in respect of which rent is claimed is a necessary party and in his absence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. On the plain language of the Rule, a third party is not a necessary party. The suit is one for recovery of rent. All that is necessary to be established in such a suit for obtaining a decree is that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the Defendant had fallen into arrears of rent. Even in a case where the Plaintiff has no title to the property but the Defendant was inducted into the property by the Plaintiff as a tenant, Defendant is liable to pay rent to the Plaintiff and is precluded from challenging the title of the Plaintiff during the continuance of the tenancy. The principles of estoppel u/s 116 of the Evidence Act apply to such a case. In a suit of this simple nature, the competing title of the rival claimants, namely, the Plaintiff and the third party, who makes an application for being impleaded, need not be gone into. For, deciding two questions-whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that the Defendant was in arrears of rent-the determination of the rival title of the Plaintiff and the third party is not necessary. A complete and effectual adjudication of the two questions in issue can be made in the absence of the third party. A simple suit for rent should not, therefore be converted into a complicated title suit. There are some well known exceptions to the aforesaid dictum, viz., if the third party claims a share of the rent sued for, or where the third party is alleged to be a transferee from the tenant with the landlord's consent, or where the Defendant in a suit for rent by the lessee against the sub-lessee pleads payment to the third party with the owner's consent. Subject to the various exceptions, some of which have been illustrated above, a suit for rent should not be converted into a complicated title suit and the third party claiming a title rival to that of the Plaintiff-landlord, is not a necessary party.

The leading decision on the point is Abdul Gafur and Others Vs. Ali Miah, Sub-Registrar. Their Lordships observed as follows:

It is plain that the effect of the addition of the Appellants as Defendants has been to transform a simple suit into a complex title suit.(....) To guard against possible apprehension, we must state at the outset that it cannot be affirmed as a broad proposition of law that a question of title may not be incidentally investigated in a suit for arrears of rent. Where the tenant Defend