ROHIT DHANKARD Vs. SANDHYA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of disputes relating to Municipal No.13/13 Mandir Wali Gali, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. The Respondent No.1 - Smt. Sandhya Gupta filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 alleging that she had let out the suit property to the said Respondents and the same is required for her bona fide need. In the said petition, an application was filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Rohit Dhankard who claimed that he is the actual owner of the property. The said application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the ARC vide order dated 10th January, 2019. The finding of the ARC is that in an earlier proceeding inter se the Respondents, there is an admission that the Respondent No.1 is the owner and thus the Petitioner is no longer a necessary or a proper party to the eviction petition. This order was appealed before the RCT and vide order dated 10th April, 2019 the appeal was also dismissed. The Petitioner has thus filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 10th January, 2019 as also the order dated 10th April, 2019.

(2.) On behalf of the Petitioner, ld. counsel submits that the order dated 1 st November, 2017 passed in RC Rev. 498/2017 was an order passed in a petition wherein the Petitioner was not a party. The said order cannot bind the Petitioner who has an independent title and ownership in respect of the suit property. The admission by Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.1 is the landlord cannot be held to be binding on the Petitioner who is himself claiming title and ownership to the suit property. He further submits that when a petition under Section 14(1)(e) is filed, the ownership has to be gone into by the Court and since there is competing ownership claims by the Petitioner, the Petitioner would be a necessary and proper party to the eviction petition.

(3.) On the other hand, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, submits that the admission and the knowledge of the statement made by Respondent No.2 has been acquired by the Petitioner long back when the said order dated 1st November, 2017 was passed. The Petitioner was well aware that the said Respondent admits the landlord-tenant relationship between Respondent No.1 on the one hand and Respondent No.2 on the other hand. Thus, in an eviction petition, as per the law laid down in Kanaklata Das And Others v. Naba Kumar Das And Others, (2018) 2 SCC 352, no other person is liable to be impleaded as a party. He further submits that the title to the suit property is not to be gone into in the eviction petition and thus, the Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is also submitted by ld. counsel that insofar as the title to the suit property is concerned, the same ought to be determined in separate independent proceedings, if any, initiated by the Petitioner-landlord. Reliance is also placed upon Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which also requires ownership to be established under Section 13(f)(f) which was the subject matter of the judgment in Kanaklata Das And Others (supra). Ld. counsel also relies on Sivayogeswara Cotton Press, Devangere and Ors. v. M. Panchaksharappa and Anr. (1962) 3 SCR 876, to argue that once there is a lease which is more than twenty years, the lessee becomes the owner of the suit property.