FAQIR CHAND Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Faqir Chand plaintiff petitioner is admittedly the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The shop is situate in Chandigarh. before the application and extension of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the plaintiff had field a suit against Harbans Singh, defendant-respondent for his ejectment from the shop and for recovery of damages for the use and occupation thereof. One of the pleas raised by Harbhajan Singh in that suit was that Messrs Narang Cycle Company of which he was a partner was the tenant of the premises and not he in his individual capacity. The Rent Restriction Act having been enforced and the decree for eviction having become in-executable. Harbhajan Singh, defendant preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial Court limited to the question of quantum of damages. Parties settled that appeal by compromise on February 2, 1974. Thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner filed a fresh suit in May, 1974, for recovery of Rs. 1,550/- as damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute for a subsequent period. The suit is being contested by Harbhajan Singh, respondent. During the pendency of the suit Messrs Narang Cycle Company filed an application dated nil on January 9, 1975, through one Manjit Singh who claimed to be the partner of that firm, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In that application it was stated "that in fact the shop in question was in occupation of Messrs Narang Cycle Company and not in the individual capacity of the defendant." Reference was also made to an objection to that effect having been taken by Harbhajan Singh, respondent in his written statement. It was claimed that the firm Narang Cycle Company had been paying rent to the plaintiff-petitioner. On the objection of Harbhajan Singh respondent about the suit being bad on account of non-impleading of the Narang Cycle Company as a necessary party thereto, an issue has been framed in the suit to the effect whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. It was claimed that any finding given on the above said issue without impleading Messrs Narang Cycle Company as a party to the suit would be prejudicial to the interest of the firm. It was on that basis that a claim was made to the effect that Narang Cycle Company is a necessary and proper party to the suit. In his written reply to the application Harbhajan Singh admitted everything and said that there was no objection to the application being granted. The plaintiff-petitioner, however, contested the application. By its order, dated June 6, 1975, the Court of Shri M.S. Nagra, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, allowed the application of Narang Cycle Company and directed that the name of that firm may be added to the array of defendants in the heading of the plaint through the firm partner Manjit Singh. The plaintiff-petitioner has come up to this Court for reversal of that order.

(2.) The trial Court allowed the application on two grounds namely :-

(3.) Mr. R.K. Chhibar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, submits that the Court below had no jurisdiction to add Narang Cycle Company as a defendant to the suit as the said firm is not a necessary party to the suit and no one who is not a necessary party can ordinarily be impleaded in a suit without the consent of the plaintiff. The name of only such a person can be joined either as plaintiff or defendant to a suit under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code who falls in one of the following two categories :-