This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to implead an adjacent landowner as a necessary party in rent control eviction proceedings. The High Court found no error in the trial court's decision.
The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022 and CMP(MD) No.6293 of 2022
E.Velmurugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.K.Uththirampillai 2.S.Venkateswaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2022 made in E.A.No. 20 of 2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2019 in RCOP No.8 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif, Palani, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vijayanand
O R D E R
As against the order of the learned District Munsif, Palani
in E.A.No.20 of 2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2019 in RCOP No.8 of 2000,
this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
1/6
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
2.Originally, R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000 was filed by one Utththirampillai/Landlord against the tenants before the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Palani for the relief of eviction. In the said RCOP proceedings, the Executing Court has passed an order of delivery in E.P.No.13 of 2019. Since the petitioner is an adjacent land owner of the property involved in the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000 and if delivery is executed and if it is demolished, then his property also would be affected and hence it is necessary that he also has to be heard in EP Proceedings. Therefore, he filed an application in E.A.No.20 of 2022, under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, to implead him as a necessary party in E.P No.13 of 2019 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is an adjacent land owner of the properties
2/6
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
involved in the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, he filed the application to implead him as a party to the proceedings. But the trial Court dismissed the application on the sole ground that in Rent Control proceedings, other than landlord and tenants, no one can be added as a party. The trial Court also has not considered the legal interest of the petitioner over the portion of the properties involved in RCOP proceedings. He further submits that the trial Court failed to see that the petitioner is having right and interest over the suit property measuring 26 x 3 feet in the first floor and 10 x 10 feet in the ground floor and it was also decreed by the Subordinate Court, Palani in CMA No.4 of 2021. Hence, the order of the trial Court has to be set aside.
4.This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record. Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.
3/6
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
earlier occasion, being a third party to the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No. 8 of 2000 filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.11 of 2012 for
the very same relief that he has to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000 and the same was rejected on 02.08.2014 itself. Challenging the said order, he has also filed CMA No.4 of 20222, before the Sub Court, Palani, which was also dismissed. Claiming that as against the above dismissal order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition, he has taken out the application in E.A.No.20 0f 2022. The trial Court has held that the relief sought for by the petitioner in earlier occasion on the very same issue was rejected in IA.No.11 of 2012 in RCOP No.8 of 2000 on 02.08.2014 itself and it was also confirmed by the Sub Court, Palani in CMA No.12 of 2022. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application in E.A.No. 20 of 2022 filed by the petitioner.
4/6
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
22.07.2022
Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn To
The District Munsif Court, Palani, Dindigul District.
5/6
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vrn
Order made in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1499 of 2022
22.07.2022
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an adjacent landowner can be impleaded as a necessary party to rent control proceedings involving eviction of tenants from adjoining property.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing an impleadment application based on lack of legal interest and identical relief previously rejected.
E. Velmurugan
K. Uththirampillai
S. Venkateswaran
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
