ARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KALAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is directed against an order dated 27.10.2016, whereby the trial court in SCC Suit No.74 of 2011 has rejected an application filed by the revisionist seeking his impleadment.

(2.) Smt. Kalawati (since deceased) now represented by her legal heirs filed SCC Suit No.74 of 2011 against opposite party no.2 (for short 'the tenant') for his eviction from a building bearing municipal no.105/505 Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar and for recovery of arrears of rent. The revisionist filed an application seeking his impleadment claiming that out of five rooms in the said house, two rooms, chabutara and common bathroom latrine are in his possession in pursuance of an allotment order dated 11.4.1994 issued by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisionist claims that the tenant against whom suit was brought is in collusion with the plaintiff and since the revisionist is in lawful possession of part of the demised premises in pursuance of an allotment order and, therefore, he is a necessary and proper party and should be impleaded, otherwise he would be evicted in pursuance of the decree passed in the said suit.

(3.) The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit is for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction instituted against the person whom the plaintiff recognises as her tenant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revisionist and the plaintiff. The revisionist has not disclosed the boundaries of the premises in his possession in the documents filed by him. The trial court has relied on a judgement of the Supreme Court inRazia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 and observed that any person not having a direct interest could not be impleaded.