- (1.) The facts of the case are that Maharishi Dayanand Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur (hereinafter "the plaintiff") filed a suit for eviction against one Smt. Mridula Sharma (hereinafter "the defendant") before the Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan on a ground of subletting. The suit was opposed by the said Mridula Sharma and written statement of denial filed.
(2.) The petitioner Pooran Chand Gupta moved an application before the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment. The trial court on consideration of the application found that there was no material filed by the applicant to establish his alleged relation as a tenant with the plaintiff. No rent receipts for the period commencing 1982 when the applicant's alleged tenancy with the plaintiff was stated to have commenced till 2007 were relied upon. The alleged payments to one Ram Mohan Sharma, who died in the year 2004 on behalf of the plaintiff by the applicant was also disbelieved more particularly as the applicant has not filed any material to prima facie establish that the said Ram Mohan Sharma has been authorized by the plaintiff to receive rent of the tenanted premises on his behalf from the applicant. It was further noted that contrarily the defendant Mridula Sharma had admitted in her written statement that she had deposited the rent due into the plaintiff's account for the tenanted premises on 10.10.2007 to an extent of Rs.6,000/-, on 23.04.2007 to an extent of Rs.4050/- as also on 13.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.755/- and on 03.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,800/- towards due rent. The trial court observed that at best the applicant even if in possession could make out a case of sub-tenancy through Mridula Sharma without the authority of the plaintiff and in that capacity in terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not entitled to be impleaded as party in the plaintiff's suit for eviction. Reference was specifically made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupchand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi (Private) Limited, 1964 AIR(SC) 1889 where it was held that "where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee, but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act." The purport of the aforesaid judgment, in my considered opinion, is that the sub-lessee without the authority of the lessor is not entitled to impleadment in the lessor's suit for eviction of the lessee and the possession of the leased premises.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner/applicant has submitted that the applicant is in peaceful possession of the tenanted shop and has been regularly paying the rent to the plaintiff and in these circumstances, the non-impleadment of the applicant in the plaintiff's suit against the defendant would cause serious prejudice and hardship to the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant as an affected person has an interest in the eviction proceedings and therefore ought to have been impleaded as a defendant by the trial court on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It has been submitted that the trial court has committed a serious perversity in concluding that no case of tenancy between the applicant and the plaintiff was made out despite the fact that rent was being deposited by the applicant into the plaintiff's account since September, 2007 and prior thereto being paid as per direction of the original trustee Shri Satyavrat Samvedi. It has been submitted that the trial court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant was collusive as the defendant was not in possession and would not be adversely affected in the event of a decree of eviction being passed against her with the corresponding direction for possession of the tenanted shop to the plaintiff.;