BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. SHEO NANDAN UPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order dismissing the petitioner's application for being added as an intervenor defendant under Order 1. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Circumstances giving rise to the present application are as follows. One quarter No. 15/M.I.G., situated within Lohianagar Housing Colony in the town of Patna and belonging to the State of Bihar was allotted by the Housing Department to one Manoranjan Prasad Singh as a monthly tenant. On account of default in payment of rent and on the ground that the tenant had vacated the house and kept it vacant though locked the Housing Department sent a notice to the tenant aforesaid to show cause against the cancellation of the allotment in his favour. The notice aforesaid was returned unserved, the report being that the person concerned had left and was not traced. Thereafter the State Government cancelled the allotment in favour of Manoranjan Prasad Singh aforesaid and on 9th of December. 1970 allotted the aforesaid house to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 110/-. There were certain other conditions attached to the allotment in his favour namely, that the petitioner would deposit three months' rent in advance, that he would pay rent on the 5th of every month that the allotment in his favour was a temporary one and in case it was allotted to some body else on a permanent basis he would vacate the house in question, that he would keep the house in proper repairs and that he would pay the holding tax and other taxes in addition to the monthly rent. It was directed that the petitioner would execute a written deed of agreement whereafter he was to be given vacant possession of the house. The aforesaid order is An-nexure 1 to the present application. It appears next that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- being three months' rent in advance by receipt dated 21st of December. 1970/23rd January, 1971. It is said, however, that on account of the house being under the unauthorised occupation of opposite party No. 1 the petitioner could not get actual possession of the house. It appears that on the 10th January, 1971, the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Housing Board filed an application under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act. 1956 (Act XX of 1956) for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from the aforesaid house alleged to be under his unauthorised occupation. It may be mentioned at this stage that opposite party No. 1 claims to be staying in the house aforesaid as e guest of the original tenant Menorenjan Prasad Singh. The competent authority under the Act aforesaid, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sader, Patna ordered the eviction of opposite party No. 1 by an order dated the 5th May, 1972. A title suit was then filed by opposite party No. 1 (Title Suit No. 71 of 1972) in the court of Munsif 3rd, Patna for a declaration that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 5th of May. 1972 was without jurisdiction and illegal and also for grant of a permanent injunction against the State of Bihar and the House Controller, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 restraining them from evicting the plaintiff. (opposite party No. 1). During the course of the suit, it is said, that a petition for ad-interim injunction was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and was granted with the result that the order of eviction stands stayed. The State of Bihar has entered appearance in this suit. The petitioner filed an application on the 1st of July, 1972 for being impleaded as a defendant. This application has been dismissed by an order dated the 11th of August, 1972. Hence this application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly that the court below has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as it has not considered the question as to whether the petitioner is a proper party and his presence is necessary for the complete and effectual adjudication of the matters involved in the suit. In this connection it is urged that the petitioner has a direct interest in the matter involved in the suit. Secondly he has urged that the order of the learned Munsif, if sustained, will result in multiplicity of suits, which it is the purpose, of law to avoid and thirdly that the State of Bihar is indifferent in the matter, the main interest involved being that of the petitioner, and is, therefore, not properly defending the suit which might result in great prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar has admitted the position that the house having been allotted to the petitioner he has a direct interest in the suit.