*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 24^th July, 2014

+

CS (OS) 3391/2012

KAMAL MITRA CHENOY & ANR

..... Plaintiff

Through

Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Advocate

with Mr. A.S. Rohtagi, Advocate

versus

M/S DUNLOP INDIA LTD & ANR

..... Defendant

Through

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate

with Mr.Tara Vitasta Ganju, Advocate

Ms. Preeti Gupta, Advocate &

Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

IA No.1072/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)

IA No.4904/2013 (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and

IA No.891/2014 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in CS (OS) 3391/2012

1.

Plaintiff No.1 (Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy) is husband and Plaintiff

No.2 (Dr. Anuradha Mitra Chenoy) is the wife. A suit for

eviction/possession and permanent injunction was filed by the

Plaintiffs against the Defendants with the allegations that Property

No.19, Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, as described in Para

1 of the plaint was let out by Plaintiffs to Defendant No.1 (M/s.

Dunlop India Limited) through its authorised signatory Mr. R.K.

Kapoor for the residence of Defendant No.2 (Dr. A.P. Singh) and his

family members vide a registered Lease Deed for a period of three

years with effect from 01.08.2009. If the lessee was desirous of

renewal of the lease, he was required to request the lessor in writing at

least three months in advance before expiry of the term of the lease.

Unless specifically agreed in writing by the lessor (Plaintiff No.1), the

lease was not to be renewed automatically on the expiry of the lease

period. Similarly, by a Hire Agreement dated 01.08.2009, the fittings

and fixtures as mentioned in Annexure A to the Agreement were given

on hire. Simultaneously with the agreement of lease on the expiry of

lease period, the Hire Agreement was to automatically come to an end.

The rent of the premises was Rs.1,60,000/- payable by Defendant

No.1 to Plaintiff No.1 whereas the hire charges were Rs.2,40,000/- per

month payable by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff No.2.

2.

In the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being IA No.1072/2013,

Defendant No.1 contends that Plaintiff No.2 is an unnecessary and

improper party in the suit for eviction. Plaintiff No.2 is not entitled

for relief as prayed in the plaint and thus, the name of Plaintiff No.2 is

liable to be deleted from the array of parties.

3.

In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (being IA

No.4904/2013) moved by Defendant No.1, it has been averred that the

basis of the suit are two different agreements with two different

parties. Thus, it is claimed that the suit can be maintained either by

Plaintiff No.1 or by Plaintiff No.2. Since the Plaintiffs have joined

two different causes of action, the Plaint is liable to be rejected.

4.

Both these applications have been resisted by the Plaintiffs by way of

filing separate written replies. It is urged that the applications are

misconceived and have been moved with groundless allegations. It is

claimed that the cause of action accruing to Plaintiff No.2 is different

from Plaintiff No.1 or that the Plaintiff No.2 cannot be granted relief

in the instant suit. The sum and substance of the defence raised to the

applications is that since the Lease Agreement dated 31.07.2009 and

the Hire Agreement dated 01.08.2009 have been impliedly admitted

by Defendant No.2 and since Hire Agreement was co-terminus with

the registered Lease Agreement, Plaintiff No.2 has been rightly

impleaded as a party in the instant suit and the suit is perfectly

maintainable.

5.

As per Order 1 Rule 1 CPC, all persons may be joined in one suit as

Plaintiffs where: (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of,

the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to

exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative;

and (b) if such persons brought s