Punjab-Haryana High CourtSharad Kapoor vs Manjit Singh And Ors on 1 June, 2018Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 169, (2018) 2 RENTLR 27, (2018) 3 PUN LR 282, (2018) 2 RENCR 89Author:Gurvinder Singh GillBench:Gurvinder Singh Gill(1)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


     In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                              CR-6877 of 2017(O&M)
                                              Reserved on : 23.5.2018
                                              Date of Decision:- 1.6.2018


Sharad Kapoor                                                ......Petitioner

                                Versus

Manjit Singh and others                                     .....Respondents



CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL


Present :   Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. T.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
                                   ******


GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.The petitioner-landlord assails order dated 18.5.2017 passed by

learned Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby an application underOrder 1 Rule

10 CPCfiled by respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Uma Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor

for being impleaded as a party to the ejectment proceedings has been accepted.The petitioner-landlord Sharad Kapoor had filed an ejectment

application seeking eviction of tenant namely Manjit Singh from the demised

premises on the ground of non-payment of rent which is being contested by

respondent No.1 Manjit Singh. During the course of proceedings of the

ejectment application, respondents No.2 and 3 namely Uma Kapoor and Vinay

Kapoor i.e. the brother and mother of the petitioner, moved an application

underOrder 1 Rule 10 CPCfor being impleaded as party to the ejectment

proceedings while stating therein that in fact the demised premises were



                                 1 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(2)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


owned by father of the present petitioner-Sharad Kapoor who had died

intestate on 11.12.2013 but the petitioner, after his death fabricated a forged

Will dated 27.2.2013 of his father and upon coming to know about the same,

applicants i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 filed a civil suit against the present

petitioner titled as "Uma Kapoor and others Vs. Sharad Kapoor and others"which is still pending. It is further stated in the application that present

petitioner Sharad Kapoor is not the exclusive owner of the demised premises

and since the applicants-respondents No.2 and 3 are also the co-owners,

therefore, they be also impleaded as a party especially since the respondent-tenant Manjit Singh has colluded with petitioner Sharad Kapoor.Petitioner Sharad Kapoor filed reply to the aforesaid application

denying all the material averments stated therein while asserting that his father

late Sh. Madan Mohan had executed a Will in his favour. The learned Rent

Controller after considering the matter regarding impleadment of the

applicants accepted application underOrder 1 Rule 10 CPC. The relevant

portion of the impugned order reads as under:"...... However, it is also an admitted fact that the
                   applicant Uma Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor have
                   challenged a Will dated 27.02.2013 allegedly executed
                   by Sh. Madan Mohan in favour of petitioner Sharad
                   Kapoor.    The said case is pending for adjudication
                   before the Court of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, CJ(JD),
                   Amritsar who has granted status quo with regard to
                   properties of Sh. Madan Mohan. Now the title of the
                   suit property cannot be decided by this Court and as
                   such, the applicant Uma Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor are
                   also a necessary party as no adjudication can be made
                   by this Court without impleading them as parties in the
                   present suit. As such the application in hand is allowed2 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(3)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


                       and applicant Uma Kapoor w/o late Sh. Madan Mohan
                       Kapoor and Vinay Kapoor s/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan
                       Kapoor are impleaded as parties in the present rent
                       petition. ......"Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned

order has submitted that the lis pertaining to ejectment proceedings cannot be

converted into a lis regarding ownership and that a person can be a landlord

even without being an owner and that the learned Rent Controller by accepting

the application underOrder 1 Rule 10 CPChas virtually forced the petitioner-landlord to enter into lis with the said applicants when in fact a separate

litigation on the basis of Will is already pending. Learned counsel for the

petitioner in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submission has pressed into

recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported asKanaklata Das and

others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and others2018 (2) SCC 352.As against the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for

respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that admittedly the petitioner and

respondents No.2 and 3 are related interse and that dispute regarding

ownership of the demised premises has arisen on account of the petitioner

having set up a Will of his father whereas in fact he had died intestate. The

learned counsel has submitted that since it is not disputed that the demised

premises were owned by father of the petitioner and litigation regarding

inheritance of his property is still pending, therefore, it will be certainly in the

interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of litigation and that even propriety

demands that respondents No.2 and 3 who are none else but brother and

mother of the petitioner be also arrayed as a party so as to enable him to watch

their interest.3 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(4)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.There is certainly no dispute as regards the fact that the demised premises

were owned by father of the petitioner and that respondents No.2 and 3 are

brother and mother of the petitioner who had moved an application underOrder 1 Rule 10 CPCfor impleading them as a party asserting therein that

owner of the demised premises had died intestate and that they being his

widow and son have acquired interest in the same. The ejectment application

had been filed in the year 2016 wherein the petitioner had specifically asserted

that a rent note dated 19.5.2014 had been executed by respondent No.1 Manjit

Singh in favour of petitioner Sharad Kapoor @ Rs.4200/- per month. It is

however noteworthy that father of the petitioner had admittedly expired in the

year 2013 whereas the present ejectment application was filed in year 2016. A

perusal of the application, filed by respondents No.2 and 3 shows that

applicants-respondents No.2 and 3 have nowhere averred that there exists a

relationship of landlord and tenant amongst them and respondent No.1 Manjit

Singh. Rather a stand has been taken therein that Manjit Singh and Sharad

Kapoor have colluded. However, a perusal of the written statement filed on

behalf of respondent No.1 Manjit Singh shows that it is tenant Manjit Singh

who has himself taken an objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties.The relevant extract of preliminary objection No.3 from the written statement,

annexed with the application reads as under:"3. The application is bad for the non-joinder and mis-
                   joinder of the necessary parties.         Late Sh. Madan
                   Mohan Kapoor, father of the applicant, was the
                   landlord of the respondent, who had inducted the
                   respondent in the tenanted shed as tenant on a monthly
                   rent of Rs.4200/-.      Sh. Madan Mohan Kapoor has



                                 4 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(5)                            CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


                   expired and he was survived by his widow Uma
                   Kapoor, daughter Sanjna and two sons Sharad Kapoor
                   and Vinay Kapoor. There is a dispute amongst all the
                   legal heirs of the deceased Landlord Sh. Madan Mohan
                   Kapoor,    with        respect   to   the   survivorship     and
                   inheritance of the properties left by the deceased. They
                   have filed civil and criminal cases against each other
                   with respect to the claims of their ownership of the
                   properties left by Late Sh. Madan Mohan Kapoor.Under such circumstances, the respondent is unable to
                   ascertain about the landlord of the tenanted shed,
                   however the respondent had paid the rent to Uma
                   Kapoor wife of Madan Mohan Kapoor after the death
                   of Madan Mohan Kapoor. The respondent is going to
                   file an inter-pleader suit against all the legal heirs of
                   the deceased landlord so that the question of the
                   landlord ship could be decided by a competent court."Had there been any collusion between respondent No.1 Manjit

Singh and petitioner Sharad Kapoor, then they would have taken steps to

ensure that respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. the brother and mother of the

petitioner-landlord do not get to know anything and would have tried to secure

some order in a clandestine manner.In this regard, observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court inKanaklata Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and othersCivil Appeal

No.3018 of 2008 need to be borne in mind which read as follows:"11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the
                   question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken
                   into consideration while deciding the question arose in
                   this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra.12. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord)
                   against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act,


                                 5 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(6)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


     the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties.13. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are
     necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the
     landlord and the tenant.14. Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required
     to plead and prove only two things to enable him to
     claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the
     tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship
     of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the
     defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the
     plaintiff-landlord     has   sought      defendant's-tenant's
     eviction under theRent Actexists. When these two
     things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.15. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not
     germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason
     being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit
     premises but proves the existence of relationship of the
     landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and
     further proves existence of any ground on which the
     eviction is sought under theTenancy Act, the eviction
     suit succeeds.16. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit
     premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship
     of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit
     premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh
     vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580).17. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be
     compelled to make any third person a party to the suit,
     be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish
     unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary
     party to the suit and without his presence, the suit
     cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively.18. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to
     allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or



                   6 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(7)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


     defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is
     unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper
     party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit
     can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his
     presence is necessary for the effective decision of the
     suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee
     & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140)19. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order
     can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose
     absence an effective order can be made but whose
     presence is necessary for a complete and final decision
     on the question involved in the proceeding. (See-Udit
     Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board
     of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 786)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. (See-
     Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan &
     Anr., 2016(3) SCC 296)21. Keeping in mind the aforementioned well settled
     principles of law and on examining the legality of the
     impugned order, we find that the impugned order is not
     legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside.22. In our considered opinion, respondent No. 1, who
     claims to be the co-sharer or/and co-owner with the
     plaintiffs (appellants herein) of the suit property is
     neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the
     eviction suit of the appellants against respondent Nos. 2
     to 5. In other words, such eviction suit can be decreed or
     dismissed on merits even without the impleadment of
     respondent No.1.23. In the eviction suit, the question of title or the extent of



                   7 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(8)                         CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)


                   the shares held by the appellants and respondent No. 1
                   against each other in the suit premises cannot be
                   decided and nor can be made the subject matter for its
                   determination.24. The reason being that this is not a suit between the
                   appellants (plaintiffs) and respondent No.1 where their
                   inter se rights relating to the suit premises can be gone
                   into but rather is an ejectment suit filed by the
                   appellants against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for their
                   eviction from the suit premises.25. Therefore, the Lis in the suit is between the appellants
                   on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the other
                   hand and the decision in the suit would depend upon the
                   question as to whether there exists any relationship of
                   landlord and tenant between the appellants and
                   respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in relation to the suit premises
                   and, if so, whether the grounds pleaded in the plaint for
                   claiming eviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
                   established or not. For deciding these two main
                   questions, the presence of respondent No. 1 is not
                   necessary.26. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that
                   respondent No. 1 is neither a necessary and nor a proper
                   party in the suit."Applying the ratio of the above referred judgment to the facts of

the present case, where a dispute as regards the ownership of the demised

premises raised after the death of the original owner is pending in a separate

suit and apparently there is nothing on record to suggest any collusion

between the petitioner and respondent No.1, there is certainly no ground for

impleading any other person as a party to the lis. Consequently, the impugned

order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.8 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::(9)                        CR-6877 of 2017 (O&M)The revision petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted.The impugned order dated 18.5.2017 passed by learned Rent Controller,

Amritsar, impleading respondents No.2 and 3 as a party to the ejectment

application is set aside. It is, however, made clear that any findings returned

by Rent Controller, directly or indirectly, as regards title of petitioner over suit

property shall not be binding on respondents No.2 and 3 and will not, in any

manner, affect the outcome of civil suit regarding title pending amongst the

petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3.(GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
June 1, 2018                                            JUDGE
mohan




             Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No


             Whether reportable                      Yes/No




                                  9 of 9::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 02:27:08 :::