Allowed

Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and Another v. M/S Hira Lal and Sons and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2019SCCR/103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two revisions challenging orders that rejected applications for impleadment as additional respondents in small cause suits. The court held that the Revisionists, claiming ownership of premises sub-let without consent, were proper parties, following a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting impleadment applications in S.C.C. Suit Nos. 56 and 50 of 2009 dated 31.8.2019 were set aside and both impleadment applications were allowed.

Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and Another Vs M/S Hira Lal… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 103 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal And Another Opposite Party :- M/S Hira Lal And Sons And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abu Bakht,Nitin Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kartikeya Saran

¶4

And

¶5

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 102 of 2019

¶6

Revisionist :- Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal And Another Opposite Party :- M/S Hira Lal And Sons And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abu Bakht,Nitin Jain,Pramod Kumar Jain (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kartikeya Saran

¶7

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶8

1- Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the applicants-revisionists and Sri Kartikeya Saran along with Sri Prattek Samadhia, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶9

2- This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,1887, has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 31.08.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.56 of 2009 (M/s. Heera Lal & Sons v. M/s Satendra Transport Company), whereby the application 78Ga filed by the revisionists herein under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has been rejected.

¶10

3- Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate submits that on similar set of facts in S.C.C. Suit No.60 of 2009 (M/s. Heera Lal & Sons v. M/s Satendra Transport Company) an impleadment application by the revisionists herein was filed which was rejected by the Judge, Small Cause Court and the order of rejection was upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No.391 of 2013 (Satya Prakash Mittal and another v. M/s Heera Lal & Sons and another), vide order dated 13.9.2013. Against this order, the revisionists herein filed a Civil appeal No.1482 of 2015 (Satya Prakash Mittal and another v. M/s Heera Lal & Sons and another), which was allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 2.2.2015, as under:

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Leave granted.

¶13

The appellants herein have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment in the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 for eviction from the schedule premises urging various grounds in the said proceedings. The appellants, claims to be the owner of the schedule premises in question. The suit premises were sub-let by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 without consent of the owner, the appellants herein, is the averment pleaded in the application for impleadement. They have instituted the

¶14

proceedings against respondent no.1 for eviction from the schedule premises on the ground that he was a contractual tenant and that the property in question does not fall under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act'. The said application for impleadment was dismissed. Respondent no.1 has instituted suit against respondent no.2 for the purpose of recovery of the schedule property on various grounds. The trial court as well as the High Court rejected the application of the appellants herein to come on record as an additional party in the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2. Hence, the appellants are before this Court.

¶15

After careful consideration of the material relating to the proceedings in the courts below particularly the pleadings of the respondent no.1 against respondent no.2, we are of the considered view that the proceedings are not initiated under the provisions of the U.P. Act. Therefore, the various decisions of this Court upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents are misplaced and the same do not apply to the fact situation of the instant appeal.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings of the parties before the courts below and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellants are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with a direction that they shall be impleaded as additional respondents in the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2.

¶17

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and the observations."

¶18

4- The parties in the aforesaid case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the parties in the present revision are one and the same. The applicant-revisionist has filed a copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2.2.2015 before the Judge, Small Cause Court, which was ignored by the Judge, Small Causes Court, while passing the impugned order dated 31.8.2019.

¶19

5- Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforequoted order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2.2.2015, cannot be relied in view of the subsequent judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the law that a person who claims to be the co-owner of the suit property is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the eviction suit. In eviction suit only landlord and the tenant are the necessary parties.

¶20

6- In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & others v. Naba Kumar Das & others, 2018 (2) SCC 352 and the judgements of this Court in Sardar Dewan Singh v. Khanuja Finance Co. & another, 2017(11) ADJ 56 and Waqf Khuda Wand Tala Masuma Waqf-Al-Aulad Haji Mustaq Ahmad v. Arun Kumar, 2006(2) AWC 1091 . He, therefore, submits that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforequoted order dated 2.2.2015 cannot be followed and both the revisions deserve to be dismissed.

¶21

7- I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

8- It could not be disputed before me by the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts giving rise to the impleadment application in S.C.C. Suit in question as well as in the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No.60 of 2009 are common and the parties are also common. On similar set of facts the impleadment application filed by the revisionists herein in S.C.C. Suit No.60 of 2009, was rejected by the trial court and the order of the trial court was affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Revision No.391 of 2013 decided on 13.9.2013. However, the aforesaid order of this Court dated 13.9.2013 in Civil Revision No.391 of 2013 has been set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforequoted order dated 2.2.2015. Since, inter-parties in a different S.C.C. suit the impleadment application on similar set of facts has been ultimately allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, I do not find any good reason to sustain the impugned orders passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.13), Meerut, rejecting the impleadment application. Therefore, both the revisions deserve to be allowed.

¶23

9- For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 31.8.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.56 of 2009 (M/s. Heera Lal & Sons v. M/s Satendra Transport Company), rejecting the impleadment application 78Ga and the order dated 31.8.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.50 of 2009 (M/s. Heera Lal & Sons v. M/s Satendra Transport Company), rejecting the impleadment application 70Ga-2, both passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.13)/Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut, are hereby set aside. Both the impleadment application namely, Application No. 78Ga and Application No.70Ga-2 are allowed.

¶24

10- Both the revisions are allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.11.2019 Ak/

Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and Another v. M/S Hira Lal and Sons and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and Another v. M/S Hira Lal and Sons and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P.Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Meerut Thru Is Manager Vs Shri Krishan Lal Sahni and Others

Sameer Agarwal and 2 Others Vs Javed Ahmad

Gaurav Singh Vs Munishwar Lal Kakkad

Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and Another Vs M/S Hira Lal and Sons and Another

Mohammad Shahid Vs Judge Smal Causes Court Kanpur Nagar and Another

Shri Mohammad Shahid Vs Judge Smaal Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar and Another