Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Pandey, J.
Smt. Krishnadevi
Vs.
Pravinchand
C.R. No. 754 of 1996 (J)
Decided On: 20.11.1996
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. A.D. Deoras, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. P. Diwakar, Advocate
In a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, all the landlords are not necessary parties, and the claim for arrears of rent cannot be bifurcated and viewed separately from the claim for ejectment.
Headnote:
ORDER I RULE 10(2) - NECESSARY PARTIES - M.P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 12(1)(A) - SUIT FOR EVICTION AND ARREARS OF RENT - CO-LANDLORDS AS NECESSARY PARTIES - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, tenants in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add necessary parties to the suit. They argued that the non-applicants, who were co-landlords, had not joined all the necessary parties, including the mother, brother, and another alleged co-owner of the suit property. The non-applicants contended that they were the landlords as recognized by the tenant in a previous notice, and that the other alleged co-owners had no right or title to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not a simple suit for arrears of rent but also included a claim for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The court found that in a suit for eviction under the Act, all the landlords are not necessary parties, as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in various cases. The court interpreted Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and Section 13 of the Act to conclude that a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) implicitly includes a claim for arrears of rent and that the claim for arrears of rent cannot be bifurcated and viewed separately from the claim for ejectment.
Issues: 1. Whether all co-landlords are necessary parties in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. Whether the claim for arrears of rent can be bifurcated and viewed separately from the claim for ejectment under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, all the landlords are not necessary parties, as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in various cases. 2. The court interpreted Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and Section 13 of the Act to conclude that a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) implicitly includes a claim for arrears of rent and that the claim for arrears of rent cannot be bifurcated and viewed separately from the claim for ejectment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the applicants, holding that there was no merit in their contention that the non-applicants had not joined all the necessary parties to the suit. The court also dismissed Civil Revision No. 729 of 1996, which was connected with the same matter.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 3.1.96 passed by VIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg in Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1995. This civil revision was connected with Civil Revision No. 729 of 1996, parties being Dwarka Prasad Soni V. Praveenchand and two others which has been filed by the applicant/defendant against the order dated 4.12.95, passed by VII Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg. Both the revisions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The non applicants No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit for ejectment under Section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the applicants and the non-applicants No. 4 to 6. In this suit the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 also claimed the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 20,000/- besides ejectment of the applicants and Non applicants No. 4 to 6.
3. During pendency of the suit, the applicants filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging interalia, that initially the suit premises were let out by late Premehand Surena, father of the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, to Kranti Suman Agrawal. The applicants and the non-applicants No. 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of Kranti Suman Agrawal. The non-applicants No, 1 to 3 have not made their mother Suit. Shanti Devi Surana, a party to the suit. It was further pleaded that Premchand had one son namely, Arvind Surana who is living jointly with the non-applicants No. 1 to 3. He has also not been made a party to the suit. It was further pleaded that late Premchand Surana had married to one Bilkis Devi during his lifetime who had given birth to a son named as Raju Surana. Raju Surana is also entitled to the suit property alongwith other property of Premchand Surana. For this reason, he was also one of the landlords of the applicants and non-applicants No. 4 to ft. Therefore, according to the applicants, the suit cannot proceed without making them parties to the suit. It was also stated that Raju Surana had also filed a civil suit in respect of immovable as well as movable properties against the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, Shanti Devi and Arvind Kumar, claiming share in the properties. This civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No 7-A/95. It was stated in the application that the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 have deliberately not made Raju Surana a party to the suit. Therefore, it be directed that the aforesaid necessary parties mentioned in the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be made parties to the suit.
4. This application was opposed by the non-applicants No. 1 to 3. It was not denied that Shantibai is the mother of non-applicants No. 1 to 3 and that Arvind Kumar was their brother. It was however, denied by the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, in their reply to the application that Raju Surana had any right of title to the suit property of late Premchand Surana, as he was not his son. There was no specific denial of pendency of C.S. No. 7-A/95, filed by Raju Surana against them. It was further pleaded by the non-applicants 1 to 3, that Kranti Suman Agarwal, in his reply dated 20.4.87 to the notice of the non-applicants No. 1 to 3, dated 6.2.87., had recognized the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 as the landlords of the suit shop and for this reason the applicants and the non-applicants No. 4 to ft could not raise the plea that oilier persons should be joined as parties to the suit.
5. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 3.1.96 dismissed the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it is not necessary in the suit for eviction to make all the co-owners parties to the suit. It was also stated in the impugned order that a suit can be filed by the Mukhiya of the family and Kranti Suman Agrawal has also accepted the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 as the landlords. It was further stated by the trial Court that if the applicants want
