HARISH KUMAR PLAHA Vs. SHAHSHI KAURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10th June, 2003 passed by the learned Sub- Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as party respondent in Civil Suit No. 77 of 1999 titled Jagan Nath v. Ashok Plaha.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this suit are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the landlords filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent in respect of a double storeyed house consisting of two rooms rented out to respondent No. 3 hereinafter referred to as the defendant. After issuing notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and terminating the tenancy of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession. Respondent No. 3 tenant contested the suit on various grounds and claimed that the rent had been paid. It was also alleged that the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. After the written statement was filed, issues were framed on 28-4-2000. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 24-7-2000. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of defendant on 22-8-2000, 29-9-2000, 2-11 -2000, on which dates no evidence was present. On 2-11- 2000 the case was adjourned to 25-11 -2000 and defendant was directed to produce all its evidence at his own responsibility. Only two witnesses were examined on 25-11 -2000 and at the request of the defendant last opportunity was given and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant on 14-12-2000. On this date, no evidence was present but the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The amendment was allowed with the consent of the plaintiff on 20-3-2001. Thereafter, statements of two more defendant witnesses were recorded on 6-6-2001 and the evidence of the defendants closed. Rebuttal evidence was led by the plaintiff on the next date i.e. 28-6-2001 and the case fixed for arguments. At this stage, the defendant changed his counsel and the new counsel sought a few more dates for arguments.

(3.) Thereafter on 28-8-2001 the present petitioner moved an application under O. 1, R. 20, C.P.C. for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. In this application it was stated that Shri Ram Nath Plaha father of the applicant-Harish Kumar Plaha and original defendant-Ashok Plaha was the tenant in possession of the suit property right from the year 1967 and after his death both the applicant and defendant No. 1 were in possession of the suit property. It was claimed that since the applicant is in possession of the suit property he was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The landlord filed reply and submitted that the application had been filed only to delay the proceedings. It was alleged that in fact the applicant is the stepbrother of the original defendant and has settled down in Purani Sabji Mandi, Jammu for the last 40 years and is doing his business there. According to the plaintiff after the death of Shri Ram Nath Plaha the premises were rented out to Shri Ashok Kumar Plaha on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- only. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the original defendant had not denied the fact that he alone is the tenant of the premises. He also came to the conclusion that there is no payment of rent by the applicant and admittedly applicant is not in possession of the premises and, therefore, dismissed the application.