S KRISHNAVENI Vs. D RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition, aggrieved by the order of impleading the respondents as defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.7583 of 2000 for a declaration that the notice dated 9.8.2000 issued by the 4th respondent herein was invalid, for a consequential injunction restraining the 4th respondent from demolishing the suit property and for a declaration that the notice dated 27.10.2000 issued by the third respondent was invalid and for the similar relief of consequential injunction as referred to above. THE respondents 3 and 4 were originally the only defendants in the suit. THE petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 have a long history of litigation. Originally there was a lease agreement dated 22.5.1985 between the petitioner and one Babu Pillai and his brother Ranga Pillai. THEy granted a lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. As per Clause 1 of the agreement the petitioner was given permission to put up construction in the suit property and carry on her hotel business. THE respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and daughter of the said Babu Pillai; the respondents 5 and 6 herein are the sons of Babu Pillai and Ranga Pillai, the second lessor referred to above. In 1998, an order was passed in R.C.O.P.No. 1616 of 1996 filed by the aforesaid Babu Pillai against the petitioner herein. In the said R.C.O.P. an application was filed by the petitioner claiming that the main R.C.O.P. was not maintainable. This application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller holding that the lease was only in respect of the vacant land and that the landlord had no right in respect of the building. This order has been filed as a document in the typed set of papers. W.P.No.13400 of 2000 was filed on 1.9.2000 by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, against the petitioner and the respondents 3,4 and others. THE relief sought for was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to demolish the illegal structure in the suit property constructed without any statutory permission. THE writ petition itself was disposed of at the time of admission by this Court directing the respondents, viz., the statutory authorities to take immediate steps on the representation made by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Subsequently, this suit has been filed for the relief set out in the earlier paragraph. In this suit, the petitioner did not choose to implead the respondents 1 and 2. In the plaint, there are averments of harassment meted out by the respondents 1 and 2 who are attempting to somehow instigate the statutory authorities to demolish the construction made by the petitioner, and to the notices dated 9.8.2000 and 27.10.2000 referred to above as having been instigated only on the misrepresentation of the legal heirs of Babu Pillai. On 6.12.2000, the respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.20558 of 2000 for impleading themselves and respondents 5 and 6 as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit. According to the averments made in the affidavit in support of the petitioner, they are necessary and proper parties and they are aggrieved by the illegal construction made without any sanctioned plan and without the permission of the land owners, namely, themselves. According to them, the outcome of the suit will definitely affect their rights. So, they have to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. THE application was ordered by the Court below against which the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IN this case, though the facts are slightly different the principle is the same. INstead of one landlord as in the case before the Supreme Court, in the case there were two landlords, one died and the respondents 1, 2 and 5 are his legal representatives of lessor. The Court below has rightly ordered that the parties should be impleaded as defendants 3 to 6.