GORAKH HILAL PATIL Vs. PARIT SAMAJ SEVA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2007 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 passed by the C.J.J.D., Shirpur in RCS No.263 of 1992.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: THE respondent No.1 Parit Seva Samaj Mandal, Shirpur through its President and panchas filed R.C.S. No.263 of 1992 against deceased Hilal Natthu Patil - tenant, father of the present petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 in the Court of Jt. C.J.J.D., Shirpur for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of residential premises bearing CTS No.1420 (for short, referred to as "the suit property"), on the ground of default and bona fide and reasonable use under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, referred to as the said Act). THE trial Court on completion of the trial, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 only on the ground of bona fide and reasonable use but refused decree on the ground of default. This judgment and decree came to be challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.26 of 2006 before the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule, which was dismissed by the said Court after hearing the parties vide its judgment dated 21st September, 2007. Hence, the present civil revision application.

(3.) IN the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, undisputedly the suit property is of the ownership of one "Parit Samaj Seva Mandal", as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint. Undisputedly, the Mandal is unregistered. Neither the Mandal is registered under the Societies Registration Act nor under the Cooperative Societies Act or as a Trust. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the Mandal has around 262 members, vide para 16 of the trial Court's judgment. He further submitted that all the members of the Mandal were necessary parties to the suit and the only alternative is to institute a representative suit after following a procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. IN the present case, the suit was instituted in the name of Mandal itself and five other plaintiffs who are alleged to be the panchas of Mandal. He, therefore, submitted that the suit so instituted suffers from non- joinder of necessary parties. The defect in the institution of the suit is fatal to the maintainability of the suit itself. It is submitted that an objection to the maintainability of the suit was raised by the defendant vide para 2 of the written statement. However, despite the available opportunity the plaintiffs chose not to cure the defect by joining all the members as parties or by following the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. IN support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following reported judgments: