Court No. - 19
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 112 of 2018 Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- Smt. Kalawati And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prakhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Shubham Agarwal,Sudesh Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant revision is directed against an order dated 27.10.2016, whereby the trial court in SCC Suit No.74 of 2011 has rejected an application filed by the revisionist seeking his impleadment.
Smt. Kalawati (since deceased) now represented by her legal heirs filed SCC Suit No.74 of 2011 against opposite party no.2 (for short 'the tenant') for his eviction from a building bearing municipal no.105/505 Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar and for recovery of arrears of rent. The revisionist filed an application seeking his impleadment claiming that out of five rooms in the said house, two rooms, chabutara and common bathroom latrine are in his possession in pursuance of an allotment order dated 11.4.1994 issued by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisionist claims that the tenant against whom suit was brought is in collusion with the plaintiff and since the revisionist is in lawful possession of part of the demised premises in pursuance of an allotment order and, therefore, he is a necessary and proper party and should be impleaded, otherwise he would be evicted in pursuance of the decree passed in the said suit.
The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit is for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction instituted against the person whom the plaintiff recognises as her tenant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revisionist and the plaintiff. The revisionist has not disclosed the boundaries of the premises in his possession in the documents filed by him. The trial court has relied on a judgement of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 and observed that any person not having a direct interest could not be impleaded.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is manifestly illegal. The trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in rejecting the impleadment application. It is urged that the allotment order brought on record specifically mentions that two rooms of house no.501/505 Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar owned by Thakur Ramnarayanji is allotted to the revisionist. According to the revisionist, he has been paying rent to Anil Kumar Mishra, Sarvarkar of Thakur Ramnarayanji Bhagwan Virajman Mandir, who infact is the landlord of the premises.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff tried to support the impugned order by contending that the plaintiff had never recognised the revisionist as her tenant. He further tried to contend that the allotment order on which reliance is being placed is also not a valid one and is disputed. He further submitted that a civil suit bearing no.1242 of 2005 is pending in which a permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff against respondent no.2.
The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff is in respect of building bearing municipal no.501/505 Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar. The demised premises is described in the plaint as comprising of five rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. The allotment order brought on record by the revisionist dated 11.4.1994 issued by Rent Control and Eviction Officer is in respect of two rooms and chabutara of the same house no.105/505 Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar. Counsel for the plaintiff is not in a position to dispute that the house mentioned in the allotment order is the same premises in respect of which suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment was instituted by the plaintiff against the tenant. The revisionist claims that he is in actual physical possession of two rooms of the said building and which are subject matter of the suit instituted by the plaintiff. Thus, any decree passed in the said suit would directly affect the revisionist.
At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff filed several affidavits and also took a plea before the trial court that the allotment order, on which reliance is being placed, is a disputed one and consequently, no reliance should be placed upon it, but the trial court has not examined the said aspect. He, therefore, prayed that the matter be sent back so that pleas raised by the plaintiff in respect of the allotment order could also be examined by the trial court, instead of this Court deciding the matter finally.
Having regard to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the plaintiff and the discussion made above, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for passing a fresh order on the impleadment application after considering the case of the plaintiff in respect of the allotment order on which reliance is being placed by the revisionist. It is desirable that the application be decided by the trial court expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.
The revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 28.11.2018 SL