The ownership of the suit property could not be decided in the present suit, and the defendants could file a separate suit to get their title decided.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 11th August, 1988, whereby the application filed on behalf of Shyam Lal and others under O. 1, R. 10, Civil Procedure Code was allowed.

2. The plaintiff Hukam Chand filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 815/- as rent of a shop in dispute against his tenant Ram Lal. Earlier, Hukam Chand had sought ejectment of his tenant in the Court of Rent Controller. Eviction order was passed o9n 29th October, 1986, which order was maintained up to the Supreme Court. Now he filed a suit for recovery. In that suit, Shyam Lal and others moved an application under O. 1 R. 10, CPC, for being impleaded as a party, as according to them they were owners of the shop in dispute and the plaintiffs father Shri Kanhiya Lal was only their agent. Since they were the owners they were entitled to the rent and hence prayed for being impleaded. The application was contested by the plaintiff. He denied the allegations made by the applicants, as also the allegation that his father Kanhiya Lal was appointed as manager of the company. However, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that from the documents placed on the file it was proved that the forefathers of the applicants had appointed Kanhiya Lal, the father of the plaintiff, as manager of the property in dispute, and, therefore, they were necessary party to the suit. In the result, the application was allowed by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whether the applicants were the owners of the suit property or not could not be decided in the present suit. It is simply a suit for the recovery of rent from the tenant against whom eviction order had already been obtained by the plaintiff from the Court of Rent Controller. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the trial Court was wrong and illegal. The trial Court had, thus, acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he referred to a decision of this Court reported as Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, 1968 PLR 451. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a matter of discretion which has been exercised by the trial Court in favour of the applicants, and, therefore, this Court should not interfere therewith. In support of this contention, reference was made to Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886. It was also submitted that since the applicants are the owners of the suit property, they are not proper parties to be impleaded under O. 1 R. 10, CPC. In support of this contention, he cited Gopi Nath v. Mumtazali, AIR 1929 Oudh 148; P.R. Nallathambi Goundan v. Vijaya Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 25 and Bharat Singh v. Om Parkash, 1984(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 298 : 1984 PLJ 102.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is simply a suit for the recovery of rent against the tenant against whom ejectment order has been obtained by the plaintiff. Whether the applicants are the owners of the suit property or not could not be decided in the present suit for which they can file a separate suit to get their title decided. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the application under O. 1 R. 10, CPC, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. Since at the time of motion hearing, it was directed that the final orders would not be passed, the parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 19th September, 1989, if no date is fixed prior thereto.