SAROJ GARG (SMT.) Vs. APARNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order, by referring the averments of the impugned application Annex.P/5 and some copies of the documents mentioned in such application argued that the disputed house was the property of Late Mrs Uma Gupta, the real sister of petitioner No.1 while the maternal aunt of petitioner No.2 and she died unmarried and issue-less. In her lifetime she executed a Will dated 11.3.11 (Annex.P/1) in favor of both the petitioners and bequeathed the disputed house in their favor. By virtue of such Will, after her death on dated 22.8.11, the petitioners have become the owner of such house. In the lifetime of Mrs Uma Gupta, she was receiving the rent of the disputed house and after her death, on the strength of the aforesaid Will, such right has been devolved in the petitioners and, in such premises, respondent No.1/ plaintiff did not have any authority even to file the impugned suit for eviction against respondent No.2 but contrary to the right and title of the petitioners, she has filed the suit for eviction against respondent No.2 and now is trying to get the decree of eviction for taking possession of the house and, if any decree is passed in such suit and possession of the house is delivered by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 then the petitioners have to suffer in a lot. In such premises the impugned application permitting the petitioners to implead as party in the matter was filed and the same ought to have been allowed but under the wrong premises, the same has been dismissed by the trial court. In continuation, he said that any party who is having interest in the disputed property may apply and join the proceedings filed by some other to protect their interest and, in such premises, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow his application by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order. It is apparent fact on record that the impugned suit has been filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 for eviction as landlord. So, according to it, the impugned suit is between the landlord and tenant and the question of title is not involved in any manner in the suit although incidentally the issue No.1 regarding title of the property, in view of the pleadings of the parties has been framed by the trial court but I am of the considered view that any finding which would be given by the trial court on such issue shall not be binding on the petitioners because they are not the parties in such suit and, in such premises, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceedings to declare their title with respect of the house and protect the interest in that regard. Even otherwise, in a suit between landlord and tenant, in normal course, presence of other persons are not required and if the relationship of such landlord and tenant is not proved in such suit then consequently, the suit may be dismissed and if such relationship is proved then the suit could be decreed for eviction only but the title shall not be decided by the trial court in the eviction suit. So, in such premises, firstly presence of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary to adjudicate the impugned suit because the same could be adjudicated only in presence of respondents No.1 and 2.