Introduction
The Supreme Court in its latest judicial pronouncement of Kanaklata Das & Ors. v. Naba Kumar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3018 of 2008, has laid down the principles to be followed while deciding an Application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) with special reference to a Suit for Eviction. For the sake of clarity, Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“(2)
Court may strike out or add parties—The court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on
such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any
party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and
that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff
or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to
enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all
the questions involved in the suit, be added.”
Facts
in Brief
An Ejectment
Suit bearing No. 1615/2000, a Suit for Eviction, was filed on the grounds of
non-payment of rent, subletting and bona fide need of the Suit Premises,
by the Appellants against Respondents No. 2 to 5.
In the
said Suit, the Respondent No. 1 filed an Application under Order I Rule 10
(2) of CPC praying that he may be allowed to become the Co-Plaintiff on the
ground that he is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Family and thus, he has a right, title
and interest not only in the Suit-Premises but also in other family properties
as one of the co-owners.
Vide Judgment
and Order dated 15.12.2005, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the Application
filed by Respondent No. 1 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC for impleadment as
Plaintiff in the Pending Ejection Suit. However, the Judgment dated 15.12.2005
was set aside by the High Court and the Application for impleadment was allowed.
The said Order of the High Court was the subject-matter of challenge in Civil
Appeal No. 3018 of 2008.
Issue
Involved
Whether
the High Court was justified in allowing the Application filed by Respondent
No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC thereby permitting him to become Co-Plaintiff
in the Ejectment Suit filed by the Appellants against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
for their eviction from the suit premises?
Principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
1.
In an Eviction Suit, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary
parties.
2.
In an Eviction Suit, the landlord is required to prove the existence of
landlord-tenant relationship and the ground on which the eviction has been
sought.
3.
Question of title is not germane for the decision of the Eviction Suit. If
above two requirements are fulfilled, the Eviction Suit succeeds and conversely,
if the title is proved but existence of landlord-tenant relationship is not
proved, then the Eviction Suit fails (Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal,
1995(6) SCC 580).
4.
The Plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any
third person a party to the Suit against his wish unless such person is able to
prove that he is a necessary party to the Suit. Thus, no person can compel the Plaintiff
to allow such person to become the Co-Plaintiff or Defendant in the suit (Ruma
Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140).
5. 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 (Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue,
Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786).
6.
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. Thus, all the
landlords need not join in for filing the Eviction Suit against the Tenant (Kasthuri Radhakrishnan
& Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr., 2016(3) SCC 296).
Held
Keeping
the afore-stated principles in mind, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
Respondent No. 1 who claims to be the co-owner is neither a necessary nor a
property to the Suit as the Lis in the Suit is between the Appellants on
the one hand and Respondents No. 2 to 5 on the other hand and the result of the
Suit would depend upon whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship or
not and if yes, whether the grounds pleaded for eviction are established or
not.
Thus,
the Application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC was
dismissed and the Order passed by the High Court was set aside.
Comment
This
Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consolidated the essential requirements
in a Suit for Eviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court may have stated the obvious
but the abovementioned principles are forgotten by the Advocates while drafting the Plaint.
This Judgment has made clear that mere title is not sufficient enough to establish
a landlord-tenant relationship. Such relationship has to be established independent
of title and failure to do so may prove fatal to the Suit. Also, it is
pertinent to note that impleadment of parties is the prerogative of the Plaintiff.
The Court may exercise its discretion in impleading any party to the Suit but it
must make sure that such party's presence is necessary for adjudicating upon the
Suit.
Helpful
ReplyDelete