Dismissed

Imran v. Civil Judge S D and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2014CW/740/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to implead the petitioner as the true owner of suit premises in a landlord-tenant suit. The court held that landlords need not prove ownership to get eviction decrees, and a third party with a share cannot intervene without affecting the suit's outcome.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the stay petition were dismissed. The trial court's order dated 23.7.2011 stands affirmed.

Imran Vs Civil Judge S D and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 740/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

Imran vs. Civil Judge(SD), Beawar & ors.

¶6

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 740/2013 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.7.2011 passed by Civil Judge(SD), Beawar, District Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 28/2007.

¶7

Date of Order: 13.11.2014

¶8

HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN,J.

¶9

Mr. D.S. Jadaun, for the petitioner Mr. Tarun Mishra for non-petitioner no.2.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

Petitioner Imran claims that he is son of respondent no.3 Mohd. Yusuf who is defendant in Civil Suit No. 28/2007 titled as Imammudin v. Mohd. Yusuf pending in the court of Civil Judge(SD), Beawar. In that suit, Imammudin claims to be landlord of the suit premises. In that suit, petitioner Imran filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC with the assertion that Imammudin was not the true owner of the suit property and petitioner was the true owner of the suit property because the suit property was purchased by Imammudin from Juma and Kasam but really Juma and Kasam were not entitled to sell whole property to Imammudin because defendant Mohd. Yusuf was also having one third share in the property. This was so because Mohd. Yusuf had purchased the property from Rehmat Bano.

¶12

The trial court after hearing both sides, by order dated 23.7.2011,has dismissed the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of

¶13

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 740/2013

¶14

¶15

CPC by petitioner Imran. Some typographical errors in the order dated 23.7.2011 of the trial court were corrected by the same court by another order dated 3.9.2012 and thus, virtually the order dated 23.7.2011 is under challenge before us.

¶16

I have heard both the parties and I have perused all the documents relied upon by the parties. It is settled position of law that in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord does not have to establish his ownership of the suit premises. Any third person may be the true owner of the suit premises, but if the landlord is able to establish the relation of landlord and tenant then irrespective of ownership, he can get a decree of eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant-tenant and in such a case even if Imran may be having any share in the suit premises, he will not be entitled to intervene in the suit because his rights are not going to be affected by the decision of the rent suit pending in the trial court and hence, the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC filed by petitioner Imran in the trial court has rightly been dismissed by the trial court and the said order does not deserve to be interfered in this petition which has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner Imram is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately.

¶18

( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶19

mlt

Imran v. Civil Judge S D and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran v. Civil Judge S D and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Das and Ors. Vs a D J and Ors.

Bhinya Ram Vs Girdhari Lal and Ors.

Nagar Mal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Rameshwari Devi Vs Girdhari Lal

Kishan Lal Meena and Others Vs Gyan Chan Alias Gyana

Pyarelal and Anr. Vs Kishan Lal Bansal and Anr.