IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Civil Revision No. 52 of 2018

Brij Mohan Sharma. ………..Revisionist

Versus

Pooja alias Lila and another. ………….Respondents

Present

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, (through V.C.) Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.(Through V.C)

1. The instant civil revision has been preferred by the plaintiff – revisionist against the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 28 of 2013 (Brij Mohan Sharma VS. Pooja @ Lila) whereby impleadment application moved by respondent no. 2 – Mahamandaleshwar Swami Ved Vyasanand Ji Maharaj Sri Gita Ashram, International Charitable Trust Rishikesh, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun through its President Sri Deepak Gupta, was

allowed.

2. The aforesaid order isbeing challengedby the revisionist on the ground that 1st Addl. District Judge, Haridwar while allowing the application for impleadment has not considered that present suit is not aregular suit for determination of title and this suit is filed under the provisions of Small Causes Courts Act and in the present suit only question of relation of

tenant and landlord is involved.

3. He further argued that while passing the impugned order, the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, has not at all considered the relief sought in the Suit SCC whereby decree for ejectment of tenant was sought and the foundation for the relief

is landlord - tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendant and since the plaintiff / revisionist is receiving the rent from defendant, as such the relationship of landlord tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant is well established. He further argued that allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of respondent no. 2 is beyond the scope of SCC Suit.

4. On the other side, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that in fact, respondent no. 2 is the landlord of the propertyin question and the plaintiff – revisionist has nothing to do with the property. He further submits that 1st Addl. District Judge, Haridwar has rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He further submits that there is no reference any statement of factin the plaint to thiseffect that under which capacity plaintiff - revisionist is receiving the rent and even no document has been filed in order to demonstrate what interest he has over the property in question.

5. On the previous date, learned counsel for the revisionist was directed to address on this issue -under which capacity plaintiff - revisionist is receiving the rent.

6. Today, in the pre lunch session, learned counsel for the revisionist requested that he may be permitted to withdraw the revision however his request is turned down simply for the reason that a specific query was made to him on the previous datethat under which capacity he is receiving the rent.

7. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the revisionist is receiving the rent, therefore, in view of the definition of “landlord” as defined under Section 3 (j) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, revisionist falls within the definition of ‘landlord’ and as such, the suit filed by the revisionist is maintainable.

8. Be that as it may, the question is - if revisionist is receiving the rent from the defendant then why he has not givespecific averment and statement of fact in the plaint to demonstrate and establish under which capacity he is receiving the rent whether in the capacity of “landlord” or “owner” or “agent” or “power of attorney”.

9. In response to this, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that since the revisionist has no locus to institute the SCC Suit for ejectment of defendant, as such, plaint has to be rejected out rightly.

10. Now, at this juncture only the order allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is under challenge and respondent no. 2 is claiming