ARVINDER KAUR SETHI Vs. AKSHAY CHABBRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 2.6.2012 of Civil Judge, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the petitioner seeking to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, was dismissed. The respondent No. 1 Akshay Chabra had filed a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages against the defendant i.e. respondent No. 2 Dr. Wellman's Homeopathic Laboratory Limited. In the said suit, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as a defendant. The application was filed on the averment that she is the owner of the suit property, having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed from Narender Chadha. The said application came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, vide the impugned order.

(2.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also on perusal of the material available on record, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is noted that a suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent as also for mesne profits and damages against defendant Dr. Wellman's Homeopathic Laboratory Limited (respondent No. 2). The suit was based on the premise of the plaintiff being the owner/landlord of the premises being Flat No. AM -4, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. In a suit for recovery of possession by the landlord against the tenant, the determining factor was the relationship between the two of landlord, and tenant and there was no question of determination of title of ownership of the suit premises. In a suit of this nature, a third person claiming himself to be the owner of the suit premises, cannot be permitted to be impleaded, as that would not only create complication in the determination of the dispute involved between the plaintiff and the defendant, but, would involve determination of issue of title, which is not the subject matter of the suit before the court of Civil Judge. The determination of such a claim by a third person would take primary position, and the actual dispute would be relegated to the secondary one. Whether or not, the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises on the basis of sale deed, is certainly beyond the scope of present suit, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is not that the applicant/petitioner may not have remedy based on her claim of ownership; but, that is not available in the suit which the plaintiff has filed against the defendant based on the premise of tenancy. Further, another important aspect that is noticed is that the applicant/petitioner had already filed a suit seeking declaration of title of the suit premises, and which is, pending adjudication. It is settled law that a party claiming a right to be impleaded, has no right to litigate its independent claim, unconnected with the suit in dispute. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of learned Civil Judge. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.