Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs Chaudhary Ram And Ors. on 17 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR507
ORDER G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 619 and 620 of 1991.
2. Facts have been taken from Civil Revision 619 of 1991. This revision is directed against the order of learned Rent Controller dated November 17, 1990 allowing an application filed by Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar son of Lajpat Rai under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Banarsi Dass filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Chaudhary Ram for his ejectment from the premises as detailed in the said petition. Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. alleging therein that they had purchased 3/4th share in the shop in dispute through registered sale deed dated April 19, 1989 from Raj Dulari wife of Raghunath, its previous owner. It was thus, pleaded that they were liable to be impleaded as parties to the Petition for ejectment. The application was opposed by Anil Kumar who had in the meantime been substituted for Banarsi Dass, the latter having died. It was asserted by Anil Kumar that he was the owner and landlord of the property in dispute on the basis of a Will executed by Banarsi Dass in his favour and that Chaudhary Ram respondent was tenant under him, who had been paying rent thereof earlier to his father Banarsi Dass and thereafter to him and, thus there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further asserted the applicants Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar had nothing to do with the demised premises as Raj Dulari was not the owner of the premises and even if she had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants, the same was illegal, void and not binding upon his rights. It is further the case of Anil Kumar that on the basis of the said sale deed, the applicants cannot be treated as owners or the landlords of the property in dispute and, in any case, they cannot be impleaded as parties being neither necessary not proper parties. Anil Kumar claimed himself to be an absolute owner of the premises. This stand was controverted by the applicants.
4. Learned Rent Controller by order dated November 17, 1990 allowed the application of Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar by observing that the applicants-vendees are necessary parties to the litigation, they having claimed ownership to the extent of 3/4th share and that if these applicants are not impleaded as parties, the main petition cannot be adjudicated upon properly.
5. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Rest Controller, the present revision petitions have been filed by Anil Kumar.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that these, petitions deserve to succeed. Banarsi Dass now represented by Anil Kumar filed a Petition under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act seek ejectment of Chaudhary Ram after, of course, alleging himself to be the landlord. The case of the applicant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that they having purchased 3/4th share of the premises in question from one Raj Dulari wife of Raghunath are deeply interested in the disposal of the ejectment petition. Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. an applicant can be impleaded as a party even against the wishes of the plaintiff if he is neither a necessary or a proper party and in the absence of whom, the matter in controversy cannot be effectively disposed of. It is the view of this Court that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and no person can be added as a party against his wishes unless the Court comes to the conclusion that presence of the applicant is necessary for proper disposal of the lis and to resolve the controversy between the parties more effectively. In the case in hand, the applicants claim that they are owners, may be they are so, but can in the facts and circumstances of this case be said that they are necessary or even proper parties. If they are landlords qua Chaudhary Ram, they can also file ejectment petition against him. Even otherwise, one co-owner can maintain a petition for ejectment against a tenant. If there is a dispute about the title between the parties, it cannot be settled in a rent petition but has to be settled in a regular suit which may be filed by one or the other party. It is thus, open to the applicants to take any other step to establish their right, title or interest in the premises in dispute after impleading proper parties, who claim interest adverse to them, as in the rent petition the only dispute at the most would be which could be and that to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between Anil Kumar son of Banarsi Dass and Chaudhary Ram. If this relationship is held to be there, petitioner Anil Kumar will succeed or fail in terms of the pleadings of the parties. If it is held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the rent Petition is bound to fail on that ground. The rights of the applicants will in no way be affected by adjudication of the rent petition between Anil Kumar and Chaudhary Ram even if they are not impleaded as parties. As noticed above, the applicants can take appropriate proceedings where their claim can be adjudicated in a more effective manner. Thus, in my view, by seeking impleadment as parties, the main rent petition cannot be permitted to be converted into a petition for determination of title. No useful purpose would be served if the applicants are allowed to be impleaded as parties in the circumstance as noticed above.
7. For the view taken above, these petitions succeed, the owners under revision are set aside and the parties are left to bear their own costs.