Allowed

Nirmal Kumar Jain and 2 Others v. Sri Prakash Chand Jain and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2018WRIA/11413/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the challenge to an order rejecting an application for impleadment. The Court set aside the lower order and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority, holding that the applicant's interests were prejudiced by the rival landlord proceeding without his consent despite sharing ownership.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.3.2018 set aside; matter remanded to Prescribed Authority to consider application paper no. 51-C afresh.

Nirmal Kumar Jain and 2 Others Vs Sri Prakash Chand… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Nirmal Kumar Jain And 2 Others Respondent :- Sri Prakash Chand Jain And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Jain

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority / Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in P.A. Case No. 71 of 2008 rejecting the application paper no. 51-C which was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner nos. 1/1 and 1/2, Nirmal Kumar Jain.

¶7

It has been submitted by Sri Madhav Jain appearing for the petitioners that in 1955, the property in question had been bought by all four brothers; Nirmal Kumar Jain, Prakash Chandra Jain, Shanti Chandra Jain and Kailash Chandra Jain. The coowners of the property, rent receipts were being issued by Nirmal Kumar Jain as landlord to the respondent nos. 2 and 2/1.

¶8

However, the respondent no. 1. - Prakash Chandra Jain claiming himself to be owner and sole landlord of the shop in question filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the said shop in occupation of respondent no. 2. When knowledge of P.A. Case No. 71 of 2008 was derived by Nirmal Kumar Jain, he filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to be impleaded as a party in P.A. Case No. 71 of 2008. This application was registered as Paper No. 51-C. It was objected by Prakash Chandra Jain by filing a reply i.e. paper no. 56-C. Pending disposal of the impleadment application an affidavit dated 13.10.2016 was filed accompanied with a copy of the sale deed of 1955 showing all four brothers to be owners of the property in question and also rent receipts issued by Nirmal Kumar Jain as landlord to Panna Lal Jain - the respondent no. 2.

¶9

A decree passed in partition Suit, namely Original Suit No. 753 of 1993 was also filed showing that the shop in question had fallen into the share of Nirmal Kumar Jain. Nirmal Kumar Jain died during the pendency of this application on 25.1.2017 and the petitioners 1/1 and 1/2 moved an application for substitution and the said substitution application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 21.7.2017.

¶10

However, the impleadment application paper no. 51-C was rejected by the order impugned on 14.3.2018 on the ground that there may several owners of the tenanted property, but if one owner / landlord files an application for release, it shall be treated as on behalf of all other owners and there was no need for impleadment of other owners / landlords as well.

¶11

Moreover, it has been observed that in a release application, the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be established and even one landlord can come forward and file this release application, the Prescribed Authority does not decide title.

¶12

Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that such may be the case as has been described in the impugned order with regard to those properties which have been rented out by the landlords jointly and there is no dispute that other landlords have authorised one landlord to pursue the release application. In this case, the release application was filed behind the back of Nirmal Kumar Jain, the property in dispute had come to be owned by Nirmal Kumar Jain on the basis of a decree passed in Original Suit No. 753 of 1993. His interests were seriously being prejudiced if his case was not heard by the Prescribed Authority.

¶13

There seems substance in the arguments raised by Sri Madhav Jain.

¶14

The order dated 14.3.2018 is set aside.

¶15

The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider afresh the application paper no. 51-C and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶16

The petition is allowed to this extent.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Arif

Nirmal Kumar Jain and 2 Others v. Sri Prakash Chand Jain and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Jain and 2 Others v. Sri Prakash Chand Jain and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Rakesh Gupta

Brij Behari Lal and Others Vs Sona Devi and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M. Vs Sri Brijpal Singh and Others

Allahabad Bank and 2 Others Vs Arun Kumar Chirania and 3 Others

Sharad Kumar Gupta(Died) and 4 Others Vs Anil Sharma

Sri Thakur Sitaramji Maharaj VIRAJMAN,946,MUTTHIGANJ, Allahabad Vs Sri Om Prakash and 5 Others