Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Devi And Ors. vs Surinder Kumar And Ors. on 5 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)144PLR371
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J.
1. Common question of facts and law is involved in both the Civil Revisions i.e. Civil Revision No. 2161 of 2005 titled "Kamla Devi and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and Ors." and Civil Revision No. 2160 of 2005 titled "Kamla Devi and Ors. v. Hari Singh and Ors.". For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 2161 of 2005.
2. Ram Singh predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the shop in dispute from Vidyawati vide sale deed dated 6.8.1993. The said shop was already in possession of Surinder Kumar (respondent No. 1) son of Inder Singh as a tenant. After the shop in dispute was purchased by Ram Singh and Veer Kinder Singh tenant Surinder Kumar respondent No. 1 attorned to them and started making payment of rent. After Surinder Kumar respondent No. 1 stopped making the payment of rent said Ram Singh (predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6) and Veer Kinder Singh filed a civil suit for possession and also for recovery of arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.2002 to 31.10.2002. (The East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act was not applicable to Mehta Chowk where the shops were situated). During the pendency of civil suit respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as parties in the said suit for possession and recovery. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 9.3.2005. It appears that Ram Singh died during the proceedings and therefore aggrieved by order dated 9.3.2005 the present petition was filed by the legal heirs of Ram Singh and Veer Kinder Singh.
3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners was that they have filed a suit for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who claimed to be the owners of the shop in dispute have no right to become parties in this suit for possession and particularly when these respondents have filed a separate suit for declaration of their title.
4. On the other hand the submission of learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings they are the necessary parties in the suit for possession.
5. Ram Singh and Veer Kinder Singh had alleged in their suit for possession that they had purchased the suit property from Vidyawati. Vidyawati was the mother of Surinder Mohan husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The version of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was that actually Surinder Mohan was the owner of the shop in dispute and therefore after the death of Surinder Mohan these respondents being his widow and children inherited the suit property. Vidyawati was not the owner and she had no right to sell the suit property by herself. Admittedly respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have filed a separate suit for declaration of their title.
6. Since the question of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent is involved in the present suit therefore respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not the necessary parties particularly when Surinder Kumar tenant had attorned to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6. The question of title cannot be imported in these proceedings which is claimed by these respondents. It has to be decided separately.
7. In this context reference may be made to Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafulla Chandra Misra and Anr. in which it was held that in a suit for ejectment of tenant the third party claiming ownership in the suit property is not a necessary party. The following observations made in Pravat Kumar Misra's case (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case:
The suit by the petitioner is for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant No. 1 from the suit house on the allegation that defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in that house by petitioner. If opposite party No. 2 is allowed to be impleaded and to contest this suit then the plaintiffs simple suit for recovery of rent from and eviction of his alleged tenant will be converted mainly into a complex title suit between the plaintiff and opposite party No. 2 and the relief asked for in the original suit will pale into secondary importance. Apart from that consideration opposite party No. 2 has himself filed a title suit (Title Suit No. 16 of 1974) in the same court claiming title to the suit house. The petitioner herein is a party in that suit.
8. In the present case also respondents 2 to 5 have filed a separate suit for declaration of their title. Therefore if they are impleaded the simple suit for ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent from him shall pale into insignificance and the question of title shall emerge for decision between these parties and the substance of the suit shall stand hijacked.
9. Moreover the petitioners have asserted their right in the shop in dispute since 1993 after having purchased the same from Vidyawati while application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 only in 2004. They have filed a separate suit for declaration of their title in 2003. In other words for ten years after the petitioners had purchased the suit property from Vidyawati no step was taken by the present respondents to assert their title.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents has made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Savitri Devi v. District Judge Gorakhpur and Ors. in which the following observations were made:
Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code.
11. As discussed above the suit relates to the recovery of arrears of rent and dispossession of the tenant. Impleadment of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is neither necessary for proper nor their addition in the suit will help the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy effectively and completely.
12. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondents was that they will have to file a separate suit for possession. However they will be entitled to possession only if their title is decided first and title can only be decided in a separate suit already filed by them and not in this suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. Therefore the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) does not advance the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
13. This Court is satisfied that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not necessary parties nor their addition will help the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy effectively and completely.
14. This petition is accordingly accepted. The impugned order dated 9.3.2005 is set aside.