JOGINDER KHARI Vs. SHYAM LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution arise out of the common order passed by the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge (ASCJ), Karkardooma Courts in three suits filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar against the respondent No. 3 Arun Kumar. During the pendency of those suits, the petitioner filed separate applications therein under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a defendant. All the three applications were dismissed by the ASCJ vide the common order dated 4.7.2012. The sum and substance of the averments of the petitioner as set out in the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 was that he is the owner of the suit property bearing No. IX/3381/23A, Gali No. 8, Dharam Pura, Gandhi Nagar, having purchased the same by way of documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will etc. all dated 10.06.2006 from S. Balwant Singh through his attorney S. Nirmal Singh. It was also averred that the plaintiffs namely Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar have filed the suits against Arun Kumar, alleging themselves to be the owners of suit property No. IX/3381/23A, Gali No. 8, Dharam Pura, Gandhi Nagar, whereas the documents which they have filed are in respect of IX/3381/H/6B, Dharam Pura Gandhi Nagar, which is altogether different, and that under the garb of those suits, the plaintiffs wanted to grab the property of the applicant/petitioner. It was also averred that he has also filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent as well as for damages/mesne profits against the defendant Arun Kumar vide suit No. 381/2009 wherein the respondents Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar have also been impleaded as defendants No. 2 and 3.

(2.) THE learned Trial Judge dismissed the applications noting the nature of those suits bearing Nos. 1249/2006, 1467/2006 & 612/2007, which were filed by the respondents/plaintiffs Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar. It was noted that the Suit No. 1249/2006 was for possession and recovery of arrears of rent, wherein defendant Arun Kumar had admitted him to be the tenant under them in respect of the property No. IX/3381/H/6B, Dharam Pura Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The suit bearing No. 1467/2006 was under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act for recovery of damages from Arun Kumar in respect of the same property. The suit No. 612/2007 was for permanent and mandatory injunction against Arun Kumar on the averments of later being in possession of the said property as a tenant under the plaintiffs Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar. It was rightly noted that in all the three cases, it was the relationship of landlord and tenant, which was required to be established, and not any question regarding title or ownership of the said premises. In the suits of this nature, the controversy being set up by a third person, claiming to be the owner of the suit premises, cannot be allowed to be gone into. It was rightly observed that if the applicant is arrayed as defendant in those suits, their scope and character would completely change and the suits for possession, injunction and recovery of mesne profits etc. would be converted into suit for determination of title between the plaintiffs and the applicant. There is no dispute that the same is not permissible. Further, the question which has been raised by the applicant/petitioner regarding the identity of the property being different in the set of documents sought to be relied upon by him, than those which are relied upon by the plaintiffs Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar, also cannot be gone into the present suits. 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. The right, if any, the petitioner have, would not lie in the instant suits; but, in some other appropriate remedy, and for which, he admits having already filed a suit being Suit No. 381/2009 and in which, the plaintiffs of these three suits, have already been impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 & 2. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.