KALI CHARAN Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals can be decided by a common judgment as a common question of law arises.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent ad mittedly is the landlord, while the res pective defendants appellants in the two appeals are tenants in separate portions of a house on separate engagements. What the plaintiff landlord did was that after terminating the respective ten ancies of his two tenants in the separate portions of the house, filed one single suit for their eviction pleading a separate cause of action against each based on their separate engagement of tenancy. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit was incompetent as the provisions of O. 1, R. 3 of the C. P. Code did not permitpetent as the provisions of O. 1, R. 3 of the C. P. Code did not permit a single suit against the two defendants who could not be joined in one single suit as defendants, as the right which the plaintiff asserted against each of them was based on different transactions and not on a common transaction. The learned Munsif rejected the plea on the ground that since the house in which the two separate tenancies were created in favour of the two defendants was one single unit of which the plaintiff was the owner, the two defendants could be joined in one suit. That appears to be the main reason on which the learned Munsif held that the suit thus brought was not bad. On other material issues the finding having been recorded against the defendants a decree for their evic tion was passed. The two defendants then filed separate appeals in the lower appellate court against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The two appeals were consolidated. Again the objection as to the competency of the suit was reiterated in the lower appel late court but was repelled substantially on the same ground on which the learn ed Munsif had repelled it. The finding on other material issues having been affirmed the appeals were dismissed. The defendants tenants have now filed two separate appeals before this Court.

(3.) THE next question urged was that Rule 9 of Order 1, Civil P. C., would apply and the plaintiff's suit cannot be thrown out. I see some difficulty in ap plying Rule 9 to a case where under Rule 3 of Order 1 the suit is incompe tent. To my mind impleading two defendants to a suit against whom there are independent causes of action is neither a case of mis-joinder nor nonjoinder of parties. The suit as brought was incompetent and deserved to bel thrown out.