I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner but I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the same. The question as to who is entitled to rent from respondent No. 1 has necessarily to be decided by the Trial Court. Since respondent No. 2, Om Prakash Sharma, is claiming to have inherited the property by virtue of Will alleged to have been executed by Prem Devi, the question as to whether or not there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 has to be decided by the Trial Court. In case, it is held by the Court that petitioner is not the landlord, his suit may have to be dismissed. In my view, without the presence of respondent No. 2, it may not be possible for the Court to decide the question as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Trial Court has, Therefore, rightly allowed the application since the presence of respondent No. 2 was material and necessary for deciding the matters in controversy between the parties in the suit. In my view, the Trial Court has neither exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application of respondent No. 2 nor there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Civil Revision No. 181 of 1994
Decided On: 18.01.2001
Gayatri Devi Vs. Mangat Singh and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.K. Mahajan, J.
Citation: 2001(2) RCJ 616.
1. Admit.
With the consent of the parties, I have heard arguments in this case and the petition is being disposed of finally.
One Ambey Pershad was the owner of the property bearing House No. 310 (Part 2), Ward II, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006. His wife was Prem Devi. They had no issue. Ambey Pershad and Prem Devi died issueless. on their death, their brother Jagan Nath claimed to have become owner of the property by succession. Sona Devi was the wife of Jagan nath. They had only one daughter by the name of Gayatri Devi. on their death, Gayatri Devi claimed to have become owner of the suit property. Gayatri Devi thus claiming to be the owner, filed a suit for recovery of rent against Mangat Singh who was a tenant in a portion of the suit property. While the suit was pending, and application was filed by respondent No. 2, Om Prakash Sharma, under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC stating, inter alia, that Prem Devi, wife of Ambey Pershad, had during her life-life-time executed a Will bequeathing the property in suit to him. It was, Therefore, stated in the application that he was a necessary party to the suit and he should be impleaded as a party therein. The application was opposed by the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned Trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 1st October, 1993 allowed the application and impleaded Om Prakash Sharma as a defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition was filed by the petitioner.
2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a suit for recovery of rent cannot be converted into a suit for title by the addition of parties so as to adjudicate upon the title of the parties and in case the impugned order is not set aside, the nature of the suit will change from the suit of recovery of rent to a case for declaration of title. For this he has placed reliance upon a judgment MANU/KE/0131/1960 : AIR1960Ker284 .
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner but I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the same. The question as to who is entitled to rent from respondent No. 1 has necessarily to be decided by the Trial Court. Since respondent No. 2, Om Prakash Sharma, is claiming to have inherited the property by virtue of Will alleged to have been executed by Prem Devi, the question as to whether or not there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 has to be decided by the Trial Court. In case, it is held by the Court that petitioner is not the landlord, his suit may have to be dismissed. In my view, without the presence of respondent No. 2, it may not be possible for the Court to decide the question as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned Trial Court has, Therefore, rightly allowed the application since the presence of respondent No. 2 was material and necessary for deciding the matters in controversy between the parties in the suit. In my view, the Trial Court has neither exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application of respondent No. 2 nor there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
4. I, Therefore, do not see any reason to set aside the impugned order. Petition has no merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Petition dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment