Back
Third parties claiming title over the rented property cannot be impleaded in eviction proceedings.
Headnote:
EVICTION PROCEEDINGS - IMPLEADMENT OF THIRD PARTY - NOT PERMISSIBLE - [LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP CAN BE DECIDED WITHOUT IMPLEADING THIRD PARTY CLAIMING TITLE OVER PROPERTY]
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction application against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of his son. The intervenor, claiming to have obtained possession of the rented shop from the tenant in execution of a civil court decree, filed an application for impleadment in the eviction proceedings. The Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impleadment of a third party in eviction proceedings on the basis of title or ownership is not permissible. The scope of eviction proceedings is limited to determining the landlord-tenant relationship and the ground of eviction. Issues related to title or ownership cannot be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority.
Issues: Whether a third party claiming title over the rented property can be impleaded in eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in J.J. Lal Private Ltd. v. M.R. Murali, which held that the impleadment of a third party in eviction proceedings would change the complexion of the litigation and raise controversies beyond the scope of the proceedings. The court also noted that the Rent Controlling Authority had earlier dismissed a similar application for impleadment by the same party.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of impleadment. The application filed by the intervenor for impleadment was dismissed.
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Bench at Gwalior
CR-403-2021
[Shyamlal Vyas (Dead) through Legal Representatives
Smt. Gopi Vyas & Ors.]
Vs.
[Inderchand (Dead) through Legal Representatives
Shri Om Praksh Jain & Ors.]
Gwalior, Dated:07/01/
2022
Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sanjeev Jain, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 &
02.
Shri Kamal Mangal, learned counsel for the respondent No.03.
1.
This petition has been filed by the landlord-applicants against
the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority,
Laskar, Gwalior (M.P.) in Eviction Case No.24/95-96X90-7, whereby
the application filed by the intervenor-respondents under Order 1
Rule 10 of the CPC for impledment has been allowed.
2.
Brief relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the
applicants had filed an eviction application under Section 23-A of
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the respondent No.02
on the ground of bona-fide requirement of his son before the Rent
Control Authority, Gwalior. The respondent No.03 intervenor filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleadment in these eviction
proceedings with the averment that it has obtained possession of the
rented shop from the respondents tenant No.1 & 2 in the execution of
a decree passed by the civil court in its favour. The application of the
intervenor has been allowed by the impugned order against which
2
this petition has been filed by the landlord/applicants.
3.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
material available on record.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in eviction
proceedings pending between the landlord and tenant third party
cannot be allowed to be impeladed even if the same claims to be the
owner of the rented premises. In this case, the same respondent-
intervenor on earlier occasion filed an application for impleadment on
15/06/1998 which was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority
vide order dated 03/09/1998 with the clear finding that impleadment
of alleged owner of the property would convert the application of
eviction into a title suit which is not permissible. The same intervenor
filed another application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on
similar grounds of the decree of civil court in its favour which was
dismissed by the same Rent Controlling Authority, but surprisingly
the present application filed on the same grounds for impleadment
has been allowed. The decree of the civil court on the basis of which
impleadment has been sought has been obtained by collusion. The
present landlord is not party in the civil suit in which collusive decree
has been passed. The dispute with regard to title of the property
including disputed rented property herein is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed
the present eviction proceedings to continue. The present application
3
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed concealing the material
facts. The learned Rent Controlling Authority did not consider its
earlier orders, whereby similar prayer of the impleadment and the
application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on similar grounds
were already dismissed. It also lost sight of the orders of different
courts having bearing on the issue which were filed by the landlord-
petitioners alongwith detailed reply to the application. The
impugned order is per-se illegal which deserves to be set aside. He
has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of J.J. Lal Private Ltd. Vs. M.R. Mural
