SHARMA, J. - (1.) AS question of law in both these revision petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) BOTH the petitioners moved an applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in suits for eviction instituted by land-lord respondents vs. Tenant respondents. Learned courts below did not implead the petitioners in the suit and rejected their applications. Aggrieved with the orders of the courts below, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petitions. In Civil Revision No. 1418/99, the case of petitioner Omprakash is that the house in which the rented premises Is situated is the joint family property of the petitioner and Madan Lal. A suit for partition field by the petitioner against Madan Lal and Narain Devi is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in which written statements were filed with the averments that the rent of the premises in question was realised by the petitioner Omprakash and Madan Lal by rotation, therefore respondent tenant Budhi Prakash is tenant of the petitioner as well as Madan Lal. The tenant respondent also admitted this position. Therefore, petitioner Omprakash is the necessary party in the suit and he should be impleaded as party. In S. B. Civil Revision No. 139/99, the petitioner Ratan Singh Kothari averred in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that he has purchased the property in question from Municipal Council and has been depositing the house tax. A suit seeking cancellation of a sale-deed was instituted by the petitioner against land-lord Vijay Singh, therefore, the petitioner, should also be impleaded as party in the suit as is necessary party being owner of the disputed property. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully scanned the material on record. The question of impleadment of a party is to be decided on the touch-stone of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. Mere interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be a true test doe his being impleaded as a party.
(3.) THE object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not to change the scope or character of the suit by adding new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claims, but simply to hold them to avoid unnecessary litigation which might otherwise become necessary. One of several co-owners can maintain an action in ejectment against a trespasser without impleading the other co-owners as parties thereto. In a suit between landlord and tenant, a third person claiming to be a co-owner of the property cannot intervene and seek to be added as a party when such a case was not even taken by the tenant. By allowing such a course to be adopted a simple suit between landlord and tenant could be converted into a suit for title between the landlord and a third person. In fact in a suit between the landlord and tenant only their rights are to be determined on the basis of contract of tenancy. In Nagendra vs. Jahoor Khan & Anr. (1) this Court (Hon'ble R. R. Yadav, J.) propounded that "the element of ownership of the premises is not one of the characteristic of a landlord but it is receipt of the rent or right to receive the rent which is dominating factor within the meaning of Section 3 (iii) of Act No. 17 of the Act 1950. The expression 'landlord' used under Section 3 (iii) of the aforesaid Act does not Include 'owner' within its ambit as the ownership to the premises cannot be subject matter of tenancy. The question of ownership or title normally cannot be gone into in a suit or proceeding initiated under Act No. 17 of the Act 1950. " Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pal Singh vs. Sunder Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Others (2) indicated thus- " On the question of one co-owner being able to maintain the action for eviction, the Tribunal came to the conclusion in view of the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagan Nath and the decision of this Court in Kanta Goel vs. B. P. Pathak in the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent landlord as co-owner alone could have maintained the eviction petition. " ;