ORDER

This petition is filed by the defendant in O.S No.5315/2018 on the file of the XXXVII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the trial Court whereby the said application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC, filed by the petitioner to implead respondent Nos.4 to 6, add additional defendant Nos.2 to 4 to the suit was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Perusal of the materials on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant herein for ejectment/eviction and other relief in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is contested by the petitioner-defendant. In addition to the same, the petitioner-defendant filed the instant application seeking impleadment of respondent Nos.4 to 6 on the ground that they are also the co-owners of the suit schedule property and executed a lease deeds in favour of the petitioner and consequently, they proper and necessary parties to the suit. Notice on the said application having been issued, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have entered appearance before the trial Court and filed their objections interalia disputing the claim of the petitioner and contending that they were neither proper or necessary parties to the suit.

3. After hearing the parties, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order, rejecting the application by holding as under:

“ORDER OΝ.Ι.Α.

This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC to implead the opponents as defendants No. 2 to 4 in this suit.

2. In support of this application, the Managing director of defendant company has sworn to an affidavit contending that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of ejectment against the defendants. He had been put in possession of the suit property by the opponents by virtue of lease deed dt 23.1.2007. Since from the said date he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises and paying rents to them. He has taken same contention in his written statement. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary to implead the opponents as defendants in this suit.

3. The LRs of plaintiff filed their objections contending the application is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for eviction of defendant. The opponents are not necessary parties to this suit. No person can compel the plaintiff to implead 3rd parties in the suit. The present application is filed only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and to harass the LRs of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.

4. The opponents have filed their objections contending that they are not necessary parties to this suit. Opponent No. 4 has adopted the objections filed by opponents No.2 and 3.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the LRs of plaintiff and the learned counsel for the opponents.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the defendant has made- out grounds to impleading the opponents as defendants in this suit?

2. What order?

7. My findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1 In the Negative.

Point No.2: As per final order, For the following.

REASONS

8. Point No.1- This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of defendant from schedule premises. It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner and defendant is the tenant and the defendant defaulted in payment of rents. The defendant has filed this application contending that he has been inducted as a tenant in the schedule premises by the opponents and he is paying rent to the opponents. Therefore, the opponents are the proper and necessary parties to this suit. Their presence is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

9. The learned counsel for LR of plaintiff has relied on a decision rendered by hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3018/2008 (Kanaklatha Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors.) wherein th