GAGAN BEHARI PATNAIK Vs. RAMESWAR LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Original Suit No. 3 of 1933 (III) in the Court of the Munsif, Khurda, opposite party -l (Plaintiff) brought a suit for arrears of rent against Defendants 1 to 3 as tenants. Petitioner Gagan Behari Patnaik, who is not a party to that suit filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure Code, for being implicated as a party on the allegation that the disputed house in respect of which rent was being claimed belonged to him and not to the Plaintiff. This petition was rejected. The Civil Revision has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif. It is to be noted that the Petitioner has filed Original Suit No. 86 of 1960 in the same Court for a declaration that he is the real owner of the suit house and some other properties and the Plaintiff is merely a Benamidar. Petitioner's case that he is a necessary party to the suit and that the multiplicity, the suits will be avoided if his title to the disputed house is decided in this suit.

(2.) ORDER 1, Rule 10(2) lays down that the name of any person who ought to have joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The point for consideration is whether in a suit for recovery of rent by the landlord, a third party claiming title to the property in respect of which rent is claimed is a necessary party and in his absence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AN unreported decision of this Court in Nityananda Sahu v. Joyrarn Das and Ors. C.R. No. 281 of 1957, decided on 2nd July, 1958, has been relied upon by Mr. Patnaik in support of the contention that a third party was allowed to raise the question of title. In that case, the vendor of the Plaintiff had made the application to be added as a party Defendant. The trial Court had allowed the application. His Lordship, Mohapatra, J., did not interfere in revision merely on the ground that in the presence of the vendor, the question of title would be settled for all, time to come. This decision does not lay down any principle of law i counter to the discussions already made by me. In that particular case his Lordship did not seem to be inclined to interfere in revision. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that in an ordinary suit for rent, complicated question of the title must be gone into.