R L JAIN Vs. K GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of an application (IA 4245/95), filed on behalf of defendant No. 5 under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the CPC'), for deleting its name from the array of parties. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned interlocutory application lie in a narrow compass. Shri R.L. Jain, the plaintiff, has filed the present suit for specific performance of Agreement to sell relating to property No. H-1520, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and mesne profits against the defendant Mrs. K. Guha and five others. The applicant M/s. Good Year India Limited has been impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit by the plaintiff Shri R.L. Jain. The applicant M/s. Good Year India Ltd. (defendant No. 5) has filed the above mentioned application (IA 4245/95) stating therein that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the specific performance of an alleging agreement by defendant No. 1 to sell property No. H-1520, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and that the applicant/defendant No. 5 has nothing to do with the suit property or any portion thereof. It is further stated in the above said application that the applicant has also nothing to do with the agreement to sell or the other documents alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2.It is stated by the applicant/defendant No. 5 that the disputes in the suit, filed by the plaintiff Shri R.L. Jain are between the plaintiff and the other remaining defendants and that the applicant/defendant No. 5 has nothing to do with the disputes as defendant No. 2 is no longer an employee of the applicant and the demised premises are no longer leased to the applicant,the tenancy having been terminated on 21st August, 1991. It is further stated by the applicant / defendant No. 5 that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the applicant/defendant No. 5 who has been unnecessarily dragged in the present litigation. It is stated that the presence of the applicant/defendant No. 5 is not at all necessary in the present proceedings. It has been prayed that the name of the applicant/defendant No. 5 be ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants.

(2.) Reply to the above mentioned application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the reply to the application, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been stated that the suit premises viz. ground floor of house No. 1520, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi was leased out to defendant No. 5 for company lease by defendant Nos. I and 2 and that the above said lease is still subsisting. It is stated that the lease was further attorned by way of attornment letter, executed and signed by defendants I and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for the payment of monthly rent of the demised premises to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.6.1991 and defendant No. 5, the applicant was duly informed about the abovesaid attomment vide letter dated 25.5.1991 addressed to defendant No. 5 by the plaintiff. It is stated that it was also stipulated in the attomment letter that possession of the demised premises was to be given to the plaintiff as and when vacated by defendant No. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been stated that the physical vacant possession of the demised premises was never handed over by defendant No. 5 to the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No. 5 / applicant is liable to pay the monthly rent of the demised premises (subject matter of the suit) to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.6.1991 and is also bound to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff. In the reply, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been stated that the applicant/ defendant No. 5 is a necessary party in the present proceedings and that the present application filed by the applicant/defendant No. 5 deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents and the material on record. In the present case, in so far as the above mentioned application is concerned, the only question requiring consideration of this Court at this stage as to whether the applicant/ defendant No. 5 is a necessary party in the present proceedings. As per the case of the applicant/defendant No. 5, the applicant is not a necessary party because it has nothing to do with the suit property or any portion thereof and also with the agreement to sell and the other documents alleged to have been executed by defendants I and or/ 2 and the disputes in the present proceedings are between the plaintiff and the other remaining defendants other than an applicant/defendant No. 5 On the other hand it was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the applicant/defendant No. 5 is a necessary party in the present proceedings and therefore it has been rightly impleaded as one of the defendants by the plaintiff.