Dismissed

Smt. Rinu v. Santosh Kumar Mewara and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2022CW/4161/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Rent Tribunal order allowing a third party's impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The petitioner argued the third party was not a necessary party in an eviction suit. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding the added party had a title interest and distinguishing co-ownership precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal was upheld.

Smt. Rinu Vs Santosh Kumar Mewara and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4161/2016

Smt. Rinu

----Petitioner

Versus

Santosh Kumar Mewara And Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot, on VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Soni, on VC. Mr. Girish Sankhla, on VC.

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

05/02/2022

¶12

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶14

“ (i) The impugned order dated 05/04/2016 i.e. Annexure 10 be set aside.

¶15

(ii) The Application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the respondent be dismiss.”

¶16

As the pleaded facts would reveal, in a dispute between the landlord and the tenant before the learned Rent Tribunal, regarding eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlord has a personal and bonafide necessity of the premises in question, an application was made by one Smt. Kamala Devi to be impleaded as a party in the suit before the learned Tribunal which by way of the impugned order dated 05.04.2016 was allowed.

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

[CW-4161/2016]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned order allowing the impleadment of respondent No. 3 by the learned Tribunal, and that such order suffers from infirmity that the respondent No.3 does not need to be impleaded as a party.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the landlady of the property in dispute, and the relevant and necessary parties to the suit are only herself and respondent No. 1. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner filed a preliminary objection to the application made by the respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment to the said suit before the learned Tribunal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2016, wrongly ascertained and found the respondent No. 3, Smt. Kamala Devi to be the owner of the property in dispute.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:

¶23

Kasturi Radhakrishan and others Vs. M. Chinniyan and another AIR 2016 SC 609 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus:

¶24

“37. Coming to the first question, in our considered opinion, the High Court erred in holding that the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan, i.e., Tmt. R. Kanjana was a necessary party to the eviction petition filed by the Appellants and hence failure to implead her rendered the eviction petition as not maintainable. This finding of the High Court, in our view, is against the law laid down by

¶25

(3 of 7)

¶26

[CW-4161/2016]

¶27

this Court in the case of Dhannalal (supra), wherein it is laid down that it is not necessary to implead all the coowners in the eviction petition.”

¶28

Kanaklata Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das

¶29

and others AIR 2018 SC 682 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus:

¶30

“ 20. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant.

¶31

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the Trial Court is restored.

¶32

29. As a consequence, the application filed by Respondent No. 1 Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code in the aforementioned ejectment suit is dismissed.”

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that it is absolutely essential for a necessary party to be impleaded in a suit, wherein the said party is found to have an interest in the suit property, and that such is the case in the instant petition, and that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed respondent No. 3-Smt. Kamala Devi’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, in support of his submissions, relied on the following judgments:

¶35

(4 of 7)

¶36

[CW-4161/2016]

¶37

Saroj Devi Vs. Mukesh Kumar D.B. Civil Special

¶38

Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, observed as under:

¶39

“ 5. It is well settled that the question of impleadment of a party is to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. Mere interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be a true test for his being impleaded as a party. The object of the rule is not to change the scope or character of the suit by adding new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claims but simply to hold them to avoid unnecessary litigation which might become necessary.

¶40

6. T he object of order Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was explained by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403 , thus:-

¶41

“ The object of Order Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bonafide claimants from being non suited . The power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by the court at any stage of the proceedings. Under these rules, a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases:

¶42

(1) When he ought to have been jointed as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joint so or,

¶43

(2) When, without his presence, the question in the suit cannot be completely decided”

¶44

9. In Hardeva v. Ismail (AIR 1970 Raj. 167) Full Bench of this Court held that the presence of the person added

¶45

(5 of 7)

¶46

[CW-4161/2016]

¶47

must be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all points involved in the suit.”

¶48

Laxman and Ors. vs. Shri Raj Kumar & Anr. 2007 (4)

¶49

RLW 3046 :2015 CJ (Rent Control) 268 , wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed thus:

¶50

“ 7. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that in the petition filed for eviction, the question of ownership of the premises is not required to be gone into and therefore, any dispute existing between the parties regarding the ownership over the disputed premises is of no relevance.

¶51

11. ... It is also not in dispute that the petition filed by the respondent no. 1 seeking eviction of the tenant relates to the same premises and therefore, the temporary injunction granted in the terms indicated above by the Court being operative, if any order directing eviction of tenant from the premises is passed by the Rent Tribunal, it is likely to be in conflict with the injunction granted by the Civil Court. That apart, the issue with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship in respect of the premises in question being also directly involved in the pending suit, in the considered opinion of this Court, if not necessary party, at least the petitioners are proper party in the matter and for complete and effectual adjudication of the controversy involved as also to avoid any conflicting order being passed in two proceedings pending before different fora, it is appropriate that the petitioners are impleaded as party respondents in the rent petition preferred by the respondent no. 1 herein against the respondent no.2.”

¶52

(6 of 7)

¶53

[CW-4161/2016]

¶54

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above, this Court observes as follows:

¶55

(a) The learned Tribunal rightly allowed the Order 1 Rule 10 application made by respondent No.3, Smt. Kamala Devi, after finding that she had an interest in the title of the suit property. (b) The learned Tribunal has passed a detailed and speaking order i.e. impugned order dated 05.04.2016, wherein it has fairly observed that in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the necessary party must be impleaded to the suit in question, and that such a necessary party may be impleaded to such a suit, at any stage of the trial.

¶56

This Court further observes that the learned Tribunal has, on reasonable and fair grounds, allowed the application of the respondent No. 3 for impleadment as a necessary party to the suit vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2016. Furthermore, this Court observes that in order to ensure that the suit did not suffer from non-joinder of the relevant and necessary party, the said order of allowing the impleadment of the respondent No. 3 in no way prejudices the interests and rights of the present petitioner, which will be finally decided by the learned Tribunal.

¶57

This Court finds that the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasturi (supra) and Kanaklata (supra) , wherein the issue was regarding impleadment of coowners in the suits, do not apply to the case at hand, as the issue herein is not that of co-ownership, but is regarding the

¶58

(7 of 7)

¶59

[CW-4161/2016]

¶60

interest of sole ownership of the property in dispute, of one party i.e. the petitioner against that of the another party i.e. the respondent No. 3.

¶61

This Court also observes that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Devi (supra) relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) held that the object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to save honest and bonafide claimants from being non-suited; and the same was followed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Laxman (supra) .

¶62

In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference under the writ jurisdiction, and therefore, upholds the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶63

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶64

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶65

48-skant/-

Smt. Rinu v. Santosh Kumar Mewara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rinu v. Santosh Kumar Mewara and Ors.

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

Ummed Singh Parihar Vs State and Ors.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Singh Vs State and Ors.

Dinesh Parmar Vs Smt. Usha Sharma

Dinesh Parmar and Ors. Vs Smt. Usha Sharma and Anr.

M/S. Bapu Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.