Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Benu Rana - Appellant
Versus
Vikkal Rathi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 15 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Narendra Bali, Advocate, Nikhil Singhal, Advocate
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.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Small Cause Court Suit - Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Kanaklata Das and Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others (2018) 2 SCC 352
Fact of the Case:
A Small Cause Court Suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The revisionist filed an application for impleadment, which was dismissed by the court. The revisionist claimed to be the owner of the suit property, while the plaintiff argued that the revisionist was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that in an eviction suit, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties. The presence of the revisionist was not required for a complete and effective adjudication of the matter.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisionist was a necessary or proper party in the Small Cause Court Suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in 'Kanaklata Das and Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others' (2018) 2 SCC 352, which established that in an eviction suit, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. The court also emphasized that the title of ownership of the landlord is not relevant in an eviction suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision, upholding the order of the lower court and stating that it was passed in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded.
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 competent civil court. Therefore, the revisionist is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said SCC Suit.
5. A 'necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective order can be passed by the Court and a 'proper party' is a party who though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence is considered appropriate for effective decision of the case.
6. In 'Kanaklata Das and Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others', (2018) 2 SCC 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down the following principles:-
'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 tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, the 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-Ranbir Singh v. 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 v. Sudha Rani Banerjee).
11.5. Fifth, a necess
