- (1.) Both the revisions arise out of a common order passed by Judge Small Causes dated 19.7.2017 in SCC Suit No.9 of 2013 and, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the revisions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. Revision No.315 of 2017 is being treated as leading case and the facts stated hereinafter would be in reference to the said revision.
(2.) SCC Suit No.9 of 2013 was instituted by Raj Bahadur plaintiff-opposite party no.1 against Smt. Dropadi, defendant-opposite party no.2 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction. The plaintiff alleged that he was owner of a piece of land measuring 1498.5 square feet situated at Mohalla Homganj, District Etawah. He claimed himself to be owner of 3/4th part of the said land. According to him, a small portion of the said land, which is in shape of a shop and a phar, was let out to defendant opposite party Smt. Dropadi for a period of eleven months under registered rent agreement dated 7.6.2012. The tenancy started from the month of June 2012 and came to an end after expiry of 11 months on 30.4.2013, but the defendant opposite party failed to vacate the same and consequently, suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction was filed.
(3.) It appears that defendant opposite party Smt. Dropadi did not appear in the suit nor filed any written statement. Her husband Suresh Chandra Rathore filed an application 17 Ga seeking his impleadment in the suit alleging that rent note set up by the plaintiff is a forged document and in fact, the shop is in his tenancy. He claimed that he was occupying the shop as tenant since the year 2000. He placed reliance on amin report submitted in respect of the same shop in a regular suit bearing No.235 of 2013 instituted by him restraining his forceful eviction. The Judge Small Causes allowed the application observing that Suresh Chandra Rathore had been doing business from the disputed shop in the name of Guru Nanak Trading Company, as is evident from the amin report and thus, is in possession of the same. Consequently, he was found to be a necessary and proper party, as in case any eviction order is passed, he would directly be affected thereby.;