Delhi District Court
Smt. Anupama Bansal vs M/S. Sunstar Overseas Ltd on 17 February, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Smt. Anupama Bansal ...........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. .........Defendant
ORDER:
1. I will be disposing off an application moved by applicant Sh. Suraj Bhan Bansal in the present case, U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC by way of present order.
2. In the application, applicant claimed that he was an old man and had authorized his daughter Smt. Manju Garg to sign, verify and file all applications, suits etc.
3. Plaintiff had filed the present suit claiming herself to be Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 1 of 9 2 owner of the property measuring 2020 sq. yards forming part of property at Khasra no. 37/41, GT Karnal Road, Village Bakoli, Delhi. Plaintiff was his daughterinlaw and he was owner of the property in the government records also. Defendant had been inducted as a tenant in the property by his attorney Sh. Rakesh Bansal at Rs. 2 Lacs per month. He had canceled the GPA which had been issued in favour of Rakesh Bansal. He had also filed a suit in Hon'ble High Court. He had issued notice to defendant to stop paying rent to Mr. Rakesh Bansal. Plaintiff and Rakesh Bansal have manipulated documents. After revocation of power of attorney in favour of Rakesh Bansal, he instituted the present suit through his wife. He prayed that he be impleaded in the proceedings.
4. Reply was filed to the application by the plaintiff who denied the claim made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the same. She claimed that applicant had no locus standi to file the application as he was not landlord of the Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 2 of 9 3 defendant.
5. Plaintiff Anupama Bansal had filed the present suit against M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd. She claimed that she was owner of the suit property, while defendant no. 1 was her tenant and defendant no. 2 was Managing Director of defendant no. 1. Defendant had failed to tender rent and so she filed a suit seeking decree of possession and arrears of rent and damages.
6. As per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Court can at any stage of proceedings strike of name of any person if court is of the opinion that he had been improperly joined. It can also order a person to join the proceedings as a plaintiff or defendant if Court is of the opinion that presence of such a person is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 3 of 9 4
7. I have heard Counsel for all the three parties at length. I have also gone through the file.
8. Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant was actual owner of the property. He remained so in the revenue records. He had issued a power of attorney in favour of his son. His son in turn had sold off the property to his own wife, who is plaintiff before us. He submitted that being actual owner he has right and interest in the property and so he should be impleaded. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff denied these averments.
9. I have gone through judgments cited by all the parties. Ld. Counsel for applicant had relied upon case titled as R.K.K.R. Steels Ltd. Vs. Northern Steel And General Mills And Anr., a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Hon'ble Delhi High Court had referred to a previously decided suit of Iheel Kuranja wherein it was held that a party would be proper Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 4 of 9 5 party if it is interested in result of litigation. Applicant had also relied upon case titled as V.N. Verma Vs. Veena Mahajan, case decided by Hon'ble High Court.
10. It is settled law that landlord need not be owner of the property. One can be landlord of premises and let it out without being its actual owner.
11. Hon'ble Supreme court in Nagappa Vs. Dodda Bharamappa & Anr., decided on 06.03.2000 held:
"In our view, in the suit between the landlord and tenant there was no occasion for the Respondents to be joined as party Respondent. Learned Counsel for Respondents stated that Respondents have already filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Davangare against Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 5 of 9 6 the Appellant for permanent injunction. According to him, the suit filed by the Appellant against the socalled tenant on the basis of the rent note is a collusive one. Be that as it may, in a suit between the Appellant and his alleged tenant, the Respondents cannot be said to be necessary or proper parties."
12. In a later decision in case titled as J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.R. Murali & Anr. Decided on 08.02.2002, landlord of the premises had sought eviction of his tenants under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960). The premises were owned by Municipal Corporation of Chennai. Hon'ble Apex Court had held:
I.A. Nos.3336 of 2001 Hemlata Mohan, the applicant in these IAs seeks her impleadment in these proceedings submitting that on the Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 6 of 9 7 basis of the Will dated 30.01.1935 executed by her grandfather she is one of the landlords entitled to apportionment of rent. A suit for establishment of her title and share in the property is pending in Madras High Court registered as Civil Suit No. 452 of 1988. I.A. Nos. 41 to 44 of 2001 These applications are filed by Municipal Corporation of Chennai seeking its impleadment in the proceedings alleging that the two premises, Door Nos. 244 and 264, subjectmatter of litigation in these proceedings are owned by it and therefore it needs to be impleaded as party in these appeals.
Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlordtenant suit. The relationship of Municipal Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 7 of 9 8 Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly, the question of title between Hemlata Mohan and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings. The impleadment of any of the two applicants would change the complexion of litigation and raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this litigation. The presence of either of the applicants is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved in these proceedings nor their presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties. Any decision in these proceedings would govern and bind the Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 8 of 9 9 parties herein. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed.
13. Now coming back to facts of the case in hand the premises had been let out by the plaintiff to the defendant. She filed suit for eviction as well as arrears of rent and damages. Applicant might be registered owner of the property but his presence is not necessary to decide the issue in hand.
14. I, therefore, hold that presence of applicant is not necessary. The applicantion deserves dismissal and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Announced in the open court on the February 17, 2016 (Pradeep Chaddah) District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Court, Delhi Anupama Bansal Vs. Sunstar Overseas Limited & Anr. Page no. 9 of 9