MD. SOHAIL Vs. ZULFEKAR HAIDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a pending suit for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from a building are challenging by this application, the order passed by the trial court adding opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 as the defendants in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs-petitioners' case is that the building was let out by them to opposite party No. 1 who became their tenant. An order was passed under section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). For non-compliance with the direction of the court, the defence of the sole defendant (opposite party No. 1) was struck off. Opposite parties 2 to 4, who are sons of the original defendant, and opposite party No. 5, who is his daughter, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called the Code) for being added as party defendants on the ground that they are the tenants of the premises under the plaintiffs and that their father is in their (plaintiffs') collusion. The application Has allowed in spite of objections by the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is manifest that the conditions in either sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 are not satisfied in this case. It is not a case where opposite parties 2 to 5 ought to have been joined as defendants on the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do not accept them as tenants. It is also not a case where it is necessary to add them for the purpose of enabling the court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The only question involved in the suit is as to whether the original defendant was the tenant of the landlords and which fact was not denied by him at the time when he filed the written statement and whether a decree for eviction could be granted against him, in view of the state of law, including, the provisions of the Act. The plaintiffs have not asked for any relief against the intervenors nor do they accept that they are tenants. By their addition as defendants to the suit, new questions, which were not within the scope of the suit as originally framed, have been introduced against the wishes of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the intervenors could not be forced upon the petitioners as defendants in the suit within the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 or section 151 of the Code.