DEEPAK CHATURVEDI Vs. HARIOM SINGHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioner, defendant No.1, has approached this court taking exception to the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court. By the aforesaid order, application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant No.2 for transposition as plaintiff has been allowed.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition in nutshell are to the effect that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 brothers filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner/defendant No.1; the tenant in the premises on the ground of bona fide need of the suit premises for nonresidential purpose and for arrears of rent as well as mesne profit.

(3.) It is pleaded in the suit that the suit property is part of the house Municipal No. 43/1276, Dahi Mandi, Daulatganj, Lashkar, Gwalior. The house was of the ownership of Smt. Rukmini Devi, mother of the plaintiff. Petitioner/defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3500.00. During her lifetime, late Smt. Rukmini Devi had executed a will on 26.6.1993 and bequeathed the entire house in favour of her three sons in equal ⅓ share. Rukmini Devi died on 17.12.2007. By virtue of the will, plaintiffs and husband of the defendant No.2 Mahendra Singhal became joint owner and landlord of the defendant No.1. As defendant No.1 defaulted in the matter of payment of rent to the plaintiffs in the ratio of ⅓ share each, therefore, a notice dated 3.7.2008 was issued to him calling upon him to make good the default but the defendant No.1 chose not to make the payment of rent to them. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2 Mahendra Singhal vide Civil Suit No.122A/2009. The suit, though was dismissed but the appeal was allowed and the decree was passed, where under defendant No.1/ petitioner was directed to pay the rent in the ratio of ⅓ share each with further direction that the husband of defendant No.2 shall not realise rent from defendant No.1 on behalf of plaintiff, with further order that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs. 16,332.00 from defendant No.2. However, defendant No.1 thereafter denied the payment of rent purportedly for the reason of having raised the objection to the entitlement of the plaintiffs and therefore denied that there is arrears of payment of rent