Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Benu Rana – Appellant
Versus
Vikkal Rathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - A SCC Suit (No.05 of 2017, 'Vikkal Rathi vs. Praveen Sachdeva') has been filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff against the respondent no.2-defendant. In the said SCC Suit, an application for impleadment was filed by the present revisionist and the proforma respondent no.3-applicants. On 07.01.2021, the said impleadment application has been dismissed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Haridwar. Hence, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
2. Heard Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-plaintiff.
3. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate submitted that the revisionist is the owner of the suit property. Therefore, the revisionist is a proper and necessary party to decide the said SCC Suit.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate opposed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and submitted that in the said SCC Suit, the respondent no.2-defendant has admitted his tenancy, and, an Original Suit No.32 of 2015, filed by the present revisionist regarding the title, is pending before the competen
In an eviction suit, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties, and the title of ownership of the landlord is not relevant.
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 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.
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
