SARDAR BALBIR SINGH Vs. ATMA RAM SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question on reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court has come for decision before this Full Bench. "Is the plaintiff's suit (No. 16 of 1973) maintainable having regard to the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code."

(2.) ATMA Ram Srivastava is the landlord of a certain house let out by him to Sardar Balbir Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The defendant being in arrears of rent for April and May, 1968, his tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 22-5-1968 served on 4-7-1968 by which the defendant was asked to vacate the premises on the expiry of three months from service of notice and payment of two months arrears of rent was demanded. The tenant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. On 28-5-1969 ATMA Ram Srivastava, opposite party in this revision, filed a suit against him in the Court of the Munsif South, Lucknow (Regular Suit No. 354 of 1969). In that suit he claimed a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits without claiming ejectment of the defendant Sardar Balbir Singh. In Para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiff specifically reserved his right to file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and on 23-7-1969 he moved an application for leave of the court for filing a suit for ejectment subsequently. On 24-7-1969 the court granted this permission to file another suit subsequently for ejectment of the applicant- tenant.

(3.) ORDER 2, Rule 3 permits the joinder of several causes of action in the same suit by the plaintiff against the defendant or defendants, ORDER 2, Rule 4 says: "(4) No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except- (a) claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and (c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action; Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for foreclosure of redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged property."