Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner- applicant seeks to question the order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Sridungargarh in Civil Suit No.06/2005 whereby the application moved by him under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment in the pending suit has been rejected.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that the plaintiffs- respondents Nos.1 & 2 Bheru Mal and Mool Chand have filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-respondent No.3 Babu Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal. THE plaintiffs have asserted the defendant to be the tenant in the suit premises and the tenancy having been terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. THE defendant has denied the plaint allegations and has taken the plea that his father Bhanwar Lal had been the original tenant in the suit premises and during his life time, the tenancy was assigned to Madan Lal (the petitioner - elder brother of the defendant); and that Madan Lal was the tenant of the plaintiffs and the defendant Babu Lal was only working as an employee of Madan Lal. An issue has also been framed by the Trial Court, being issue No.6, on the question as to whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for Madan Lal (the petitioner) being the tenant. It appears that the matter has proceeded in the trial and the statements of the plaintiff No. 1 - Bheru Mal were recorded as PW1 and that of other plaintiff-Mool Chand as PW2. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the submissions that the defendant-Babu Lal was his brother but had no connection with the shop in question and rather, he (the petitioner) was the actual tenant and hence, was required to be joined as a party in this suit. The learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the application so moved by the petitioner with the following observations :- JUDGEMENT_1633_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_1633_RAJLW2_2011Image2.jpg The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application for impleadment on the alleged ground of delay, whereas the petitioner ought to be joined in the suit as a defendant for the facts and circumstances very much existing on the record. The learned counsel submits that the defendant had taken the objection right at the beginning with complete narration of facts in his written statement that the present petitioner-Madan Lal was the tenant in the suit premises; and issue No.6 has specifically been framed in this regard. With reference to the statement of PW1 Bheru Mal (Annex.4), the learned counsel submits that the plaintiff has precisely admitted the fact of his agent Mahesh Kumar having acknowledged the receipt of rent; and such acknowledgement, shown in the document Ex. A1, has also been admitted by the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, the said document Ex.A1 has been an entry in the notebook of the petitioner only and, therefore, prima facie, it is apparent that rent has been accepted from the applicant-petitioner. It is submitted that if the petitioner is not joined as a party, it might create complications and the petitioner might be put to prejudice in case of a decree being passed in the suit. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in this matter. Having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the application as moved by the petitioner was totally bereft of substance and ought to have been rejected outright on merits. It remains trite that addition of a party to any litigation is to be considered with reference to the questions if such a person ought to have been joined as party or whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit (vide Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC). In the litigation of present nature, the essential question about existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant remains between the parties to the suit as framed by the plaintiff and a third person, not joined as party by the plaintiff, is ordinarily not permitted to join the litigation on the allegations of himself standing in the capacity of landlord or tenant.
(3.) TRUE it is that the defendant Babu Lal has taken the plea in the written statement (Annex.2) that not himself but Madan Lal (the petitioner) is the tenant; and true further it is that on such a plea issue No.6 has also been framed; and hence, the observation of the learned Trial Court in the order impugned that such a plea has not been taken in the written statement does not appear to be in conformity with the record. Further, the other observation of the learned Trial Court that the applicant Madan Lal being the brother of the defendant had the knowledge of the suit and, therefore, ought to have filed the application earlier does not appear to be apposite to the questions before it. However, such shortcomings in the order passed by the learned Trial Court do not take away the substance of the matter that the plaintiffs have filed the suit precisely asserting that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between themselves and the defendant Babu Lal. As noticed, the defendant Babu Lal has denied such a plea and has asserted Madan Lal to be the tenant. Whether Madan Lal, the petitioner, had the knowledge of the suit or not, is a question entirely irrelevant. The relevant and core question in the case calling for determination by the Trial Court would be as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant or not. Such a question would obviously be determined between the parties to the suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. For effectual and complete determination of this question, the presence of the petitioner is not necessary; and the petitioner cannot be acceded a right to intervene in these suit proceedings. This Court would not like to comment on the merits of the case but even on a prima facie consideration of the evidence of the plaintiff, it is noticed that the plaintiff has categorically, and in no uncertain terms, denied the suggestion that Madan Lal was the tenant in the suit premises; and has also denied the suggestion that Bhanwar Lal got Madan Lal inducted as the tenant. The plaintiff has categorically stated that Madan Lal had never been the tenant and has rather expressed his ignorance on the question as to who is the father of Madan Lal. In the given status of record and the questions involved in the matter, the application moved by the petitioner for intervention in the suit was required to be rejected on merits. Therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction, albeit for different reasons. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ;