Case called on. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Tandon, appears on behalf of the respondent no.1.
Since the point involved is short and parties have exchanged affidavits, this Court proceeds to determine the petition on merits.
S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 2006 was filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is a third party, has made an application seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The ground seeking impleadment is that he is owner of the demised premises to the extent of a half share. He has claimed title as a co-owner to the extent of half share with the plaintiff on the basis of an oral gift (Hiba) from one Smt. Nawab Jahan Begum. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 has refuted the petitioner's claim by filing objections. The second-respondent-tenant, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that he is a tenant in the demised premises. The suit is one for eviction brought on the relationship of a landlord-tenant between respondent nos.1 and 2.
The courts below have refused the petitioner's application for impleadment on the ground that suit is one instituted for eviction based on a landlord-tenant relationship, where a third party cannot be permitted to be impleaded.
This Court has perused the impugned orders and the materials on record. It is apparent from the plaint filed by the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit brought against the second respondent, the sole defendant to the suit, that the suit is one for ejectment and arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-respondent on the basis of a relationship of landlord and tenant vis-a-vis the demised premises. In the event, the petitioner, who is a third party, is permitted to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the Court would be called upon to adjudicate a title dispute inter se the petitioner and respondent no.1. If that were to happen, the rent suit would be converted into a title suit.
It is against the settled principle governing disposition of rent suits, that the cause of action cannot be enlarged so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a title suit. Ex-hypothesi, no party can be impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause of action that would ultimately convert the rent suit into a title suit. This position of the law is beyond cavil, going by consistent authority.
In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and Others, 1998 (2) ARC 329, where it has been held :
6. On the facts and circumstances narrated above it is apparent that there is no title dispute concerning the property in suit. It is a simple ejectment proceeding by a landlord against a tenant. Smt. Shakila has admittedly paid rent to Smt. Hamida Bano. The suit has been filed on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter whose tenancy has been terminated by the landlord through a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the suit has to be decided on the interse relationship and conduct of the landlord and the tenant. The controversy as to whether there was or not any oral gift by the landlady Smt. Hamida Bano in favour of the petitioner will be absolutely foreign to the issues involved. Again, in view of the respective averments made by the petitioner and Smt. Hamida Bano it is more than apparent that while the petitioner claims through an oral gift, the said Hamida Bano refutes loudly the said allegation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that neither it will be in the interest of justice nor desirable for safeguarding the interest of parties to direct the impleadment of the petitioner as a plaintiff in the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case reported in : AIR 1987 Bom 276. The facts of the said case were entirely different in as much as therein matter of title were to be gone into. Therefore, the authority does not help the petitioner in any way. No other ruling was cited and no other point has been argued. The order passed by the trial court is neither illegal nor suffers from any factual error and is upheld.
Likewise in a decision of this Court in Ram Rikh Das Thakur Das (M/S) and another Vs. District Judge and others, 2009 (3) ARC 734, it has been held thus:
" 3. The facts as alleged in the writ petition are that petitioners No. 1, 2 and respondents No. 3 to 5 claim themselves to be the owners of the property and respondents No. 6 to 9 are the tenants. It is the case of the petitioners that initially the rent was being realized by respondents No. 3 to 5 and the receipts to that effect were being issued to the respondents No. 6 to 9 and the share of rent was being distributed amongst the petitioners No. 1 and 2 as well as respondents No. 3 to 5. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed on behalf of the tenant-respondent that petitioners No. 1 and 2 may be impleaded being co-owners of the property and they should be impleaded as one of the parties in the said proceeding. The said application was rejected. Then the petitioners No. 1 and 2 made an application to be impleaded in the said proceeding as one of the parties claiming themselves to be the landlord but the said application was rejected on the ground that this is a proceeding regarding ejectment and arrears of rent against tenant-respondents No. 6 to 9. In case the petitioners are co-owners of the property, this question cannot be decided in the said proceeding because question of title and ownership cannot be decided in such proceeding. The said application was rejected-vide its order dated 4.9.2009 and the revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed holding therein that the question of title in view of legal pronouncement in the case of J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.R. Murali and Anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1061 cannot be decided in such proceeding as it would change the nature of litigation. Adjudication of the title is beyond the scope of the suit. Holding this the revisional court has dismissed the revision.
4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 to 5, they can file separate suit to get it decided that they are the owners and landlords of the property in question. In such proceeding which is based only on the question of arrears of rent and ejectment, the question of title and ownership cannot be decided. The Judge Small Causes Court cannot decide the question of title between the parties."
A similar view has been expressed in a short but sterling enunciation of the principles in Sharafat Hussain and others Vs. XIth Addl. District Judge, Moradabad, 1992(2) ARC 307 where it has been held by S.C. Verma, J. :
"2. In a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by one Smt. Paigham bari Begum, the petitioner has sought impleadment as necessary party. Both the Courts have held that in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, which is basically a suit between the Landlord and tenant, the plaintiff's impleadment is not necessary and in case he is entitled either as owner or as landlord he may initiate separate proceedings for establishing his title and for retention of his possession, in case he is in possession. I find no reason the interfere with the order of Judge, Small Causes Courts dated 13.01.1990 and the order dated 26.08.1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Moradabad in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition has no merit and is accordingly in limine.
It is, thus, apparent that the courts below, in declining the petitioner's prayer to be impleaded in a rent suit, have not committed any error of law that may merit interference by this Court.
In the result this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 pks