V M SUBRAMANI Vs. ARULMUGU BHAVANARAYANASAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. All these revisions are filed by defendant in the respective suits. Four suits were filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein for evicting the Defendant in the suit with arrears of rent.

(2.) IT is alleged in the plaint that the property belonged to Arulmigu Bhavanarayanasami temple and the same was let out to defendants under rental arrangements. IT is further stated that they are irregular in paying the rent. Notice was issued to defendants to settle the arrears and also to vacate the premises. The same was not complied with, which necessitated filing of the suits.

(3.) IN Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay , (1992)2 S.C.C. 524 their Lordships considered this question and interpreted the words, ?whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit,? as occurring in O.1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships went on and said that merely because plaintiff opposes joining of party, he being dominus liti may not be a relevant consideration if in fact third party's rights are likely to be affected by the decision of the case. After making a distinction between suits relating to property and suits of declaration as regards status of legal character, in para 14 of the judgment, their lordships held thus: