Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
Jagdish Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 3791 of 2025
Decided On : 15-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Rishabh Agarwal
For the Respondent: Rahul Sahai
The court ruled that in eviction proceedings, lessees are not necessary parties if their presence does not directly affect the tenant-landlord dispute, affirming the scope of judicial discretion in party impleadment.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - SCC Suit - Tenant's right to implead lessees in eviction proceedings questioned. Court determined necessity of lessees as parties due to transfer of rights under lease deed, but ruled against claim of lessees’ necessity based on specific limitation in lease deed. (Paras 4, 6, 36)
(B) Judicial discretion in impleadment - It was held that an applicant must demonstrate how their presence is necessary for a fair adjudication, as the dominant party cannot be compelled to add parties against their wish unless their rights are directly affected. (Paras 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged an order remanding a prior suit for eviction back to trial, asserting that lessees under a lease were necessary parties due to their claimed rights. The lease was contested by the defendant as a mere facade for a transfer of ownership. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
Court noted that as the suit is limited to tenant-landlord relations, lessees were not necessary parties in the current proceedings under SCC norms, as tenancy was admitted by the defendant. (Paras 34, 36)
Issues: Main issues included the necessity of lessees as parties and the relevance of title disputes in eviction proceedings. (Paras 8, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presence of a party is only required if they can demonstrate a direct impact on their rights in the outcome of the case. The limitations outlined in the lease deed further supported the decision to exclude the lessees as necessary parties. (Paras 34, 36)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing before remanding a case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of existing lease and tenant rights. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. defense stance based on previous judgments. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 16) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding lease conditions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's verification of existing legal principles. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. interpretation of the urgency for impleadment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. conclusions on tenancy and legal proceedings. (Para 30 , 35) |
| 8. final judgment of dismissal. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 1.3.2025 passed by the ADJ, Court No.26, Agra in SCCR No.47 of 2024.
3. Brief facts of the case are that earlier SCC Suit No. 61 of 2021 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Thereafter, written Statement has also been filed by the petitioner-defendant with the specific plea about the execution of lease deed dated 23.2.2011 in favour of Shri S.K. Agarwal and two others. Petitioner-defendant has filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on 14.12.2021 to implead the lessee of the respondent- plaintiff, which was allowed vide order dated 6.4.2024. Against that, plaintiff-respondent has preferred SCC Revision No. 47 of 2024, which was allowed vide order dated 1.3.2025 and matter was remanded back to decide the matter afresh. Hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that between the petitioner-defendant and respondent-plaintiff, SCC Suit No. 61 of 2021 is pending. Petitioner-defendant is tenant and prior to institution of suit, lease deed dated 23.2.2011 was executed by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of the certain persons, having no right for cancellation of lease and further all powers are given to lessee, transferees with regard to construction, repairing etc. In paragraph 3 of the lease deed dated 23.2.2011, it is stated that the property in question is very old and dilapidated condition, therefore, repairing/reconstruction is necessary. Lessee-second party has right to reconstruct all the buildings on his own expenses and also obtain all necessary permission for sanction of map from concerned Departments. They have also given right to deposit and receive any amount on behalf of lessor-first party. In paragraph 4 of the lease deed, it is further stated that after reconstruction, rent will be payable at the rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month and further the first party will execute another long term lease (more than 90 years) in favour of second party or any other persons nominated by him. Right to take possession from all tenant have also given to lessee-second party. Lessee- second party will be liable to pay all Government, Semi Government taxes, Future Taxes and may also obtain electricity connection in their name. In fact, this lease deed is only for the sake of name, otherwise it is transfer of property by misusing the process of law and this lease deed may be termed as sale deed. Therefore, lessees are necessary party and must have been impleaded in original suit as defendant.
5. He next submitted that to implead them, petitioner defendant has moved an application under 1 Rule 10 of CPC dated 14.12.2021, which was allowed vide order dated 6.4.2024. Against that plaintiff-defendant respondent no.1 preferred SCC Revision No. 47 of 2024, which was allowed vide order dated 1.3.2025 and further matter was remanded back to Original Court to decide the matter afresh in light of observation made by the Revisional Court.
6. He further submitted that without appreciating the facts of the case, remand order has been passed, which is absolutely bad in law. In fact once the right has been transferred to lesse-second party, they became necessary party. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judg
