RAGHUBAR SINGH Vs. PHOOLMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' application under Section 115 of the C. P. C., against an order rejecting their prayer to amend the plaint. The plaintiff applicants Raghubar Singh and others filed a suit against defendant-respondent, Laxmi Narain, for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. They alleged that they had let out the accommodation in dispute to the defendant who had failed to pay rent. The defendant contested the suit and denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. In so far as this plea in defence is relevant, it denies the plaintiffs' title as the landlord of the tenant. The court has framed the following issue on this part of the case: "Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties." After the framing of the issues the plaintiffs made an application for amendment of the prayer and added a prayer for declaration of their title and ownership. The trial court held that the suit was for ejectment and the amendment unnecessary for the purpose of the decision of the case.

(2.) I am inclined to agree with the view of the trial court. In a suit for ejectment of the tenant, it is not necessary for the landlord to obtain a declaration of title that he is the owner of the house. For example, he may be the tenant of the owner but if he can prove that the defendant is his sub-tenant, this will be sufficient for the purpose of his suit. On the other hand he may prove his title as owner but if he fails to prove an agreement of tenancy between himself and the defendant, his suit must fail. Therefore, the question of ownership is relevant only to the extent that it enables the landlord to prove a contract of tenancy between himself and the defendant. The issue framed by the trial court fully enables him to prove his title for this purpose. It sis not necessary for him to obtain a declaration of that title. Furthermore, I am doubtful whether this Court can interfere with the discretion of the trial court in a case like this.

(3.) The application is rejected. However, as no one appears for the respondent, there shall be no order for costs.