CHAMAN LAL Vs. SHAM LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for ejectment, filed by Shri Sham Lal Gupta respondent against ?hri Om Parkash & Others, the petitioner here filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C.for being impleaded as a party -defendent in the case. The petitioner alleged in his application that he was the real tenant of the shop regarding which suit for ejectment was filed and that the suit was malafidely filed against the defendants with the oblique motive of evicting him. It was alleged that the petitioner was the tenant of Sh. Amrit Lal, who alongwith his real brother Inder Lal and cousin Joginder paul owned three shops at Upper Gumat, Jammu, but with their modus operandi to defeat the provisions of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act they leased out the shops and got rent deeds executed from different persons benami with the obiect to eject the actual tenants as and when they desired. It is stated that Inder Lal let out the shop to Kartar Nath son of Mulkh Raj and got rent deed executed from Bishan Dass. Similarly, Joginder Pall let out the shop to Banarsi Dass and got rent deed executed from Makhan Lal; and Amrit Lal let out the shop to the petitioner and got rent deed executed from Chhaiu Ram. The petitioner filed a suit against Amrit Lal for injunction, but during the pendency of the suit, Amrit Lal sold the shop to the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment is against Chhaju Ram and his heirs without impleading the petitioner as a party. This application was supported by the affidavits of Chaman Lal petitioner and Kartar Nath, Banarsi Dass and Revinder Kumar. The respondent -plaintiff resisted the application which was ultimately dismissed by the trial court on 9 -6 -1980. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the present revision petition has been filed. ¢ .

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) ORDER 1 Rule 10 (2) of C. P. C, provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the "application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just order that the name of any party, who ought to have been 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 questions involved in the suit, and such person as a party in the proceedings. The object of the rule is to bring before the court all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter or are interested in the result of the litigation, so that disputes ought to be determined at the same time without any delay, inconvenience and expense of separate actions and trials. The power has to be exercised not arbitrary, but on judicial principles. The presence of the person sought to be imploded as a party must be shown to be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the points involved in the suit pertaining to its subject matter. However, before directing a party to be impleded, the court should insist upon to be prima facie satisfied about the bonafides of the petitioner, the plausibility of his claim and the genuineness of his interests in the litigation. Even though it is true that the plaintiff in a suit is dominus litus and cannot be forced to fight a 3rd party other than the defendant impleaded by him, yet, this is only a genaral and not invariable rule. The court in appropriate cases can direct the impleading of a third person as a party under order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. either on the application of such person or even suo -moto. The real test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as a defendant would be according to or against the wishes of the plaintiff or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising en the cause of action averred by the plaintiff. It is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff, will directly affect the intervener in the ejectment of his rights. It is not enough that the plaintiffs right, and rights which the person desiring to be made a defendant wishes to assert should be connected with the same subject -matter. The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. The rights of a person interested in the litigation cannot be defeated merely on the technical pleas or the objections raised. No unscruplous litigant can be given the benefit of his clever maneuvers and tactics adopted to defeat the provisions of a particular Statute legislated with the object of protecting the interests of a section of the society. The J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act was enacted with the object of providing protection to the tenants in occupation of the premises against the illegal, improper and whimsical civil actions launched by the Land -Lords with the object of minting money and encouraging illegal enhancement of the rents in urban areas to which the said Act was made applicable. The court should not impute motives of such applications merely because the suit which they are dealing with is a suit for ejectment. Suit for ejectment cannot be treated separately or distinctly than other ordinary suit filed in the courts of Law. If it can be shown that the suit between the parties was not bonafide and in fact was a cloak to get decree of eviction against the real tenant in occupation of the property, the courts should normally allow the real person in occupation to contest the suit for the purposes of proper adjudication of the case pending before it. In the instant, the trial court did not consider various aspects of the case and completely ignored the unrebutted affidavits filed by the petitioner to show that he had some interest in litigation. Had the trial court applied its mind to the proceedings of the case, it would have become apparent that within a month of the filing of the suit, the same was allowed to proceed exparte against the defendants who were four in number and the exparte evidence was recorded immediately thereafter. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C P C filed by the petitioner, supported by the affidavits, was not even opposed by the landlord (plaintiff) on affidavit. Had the court below scrutinised the affidavits filed by the petitioner, it should have normally come to the conclusion that the presence of the petitioner was necessary in the interests of justice to minimise the litigation and properly adjudicate upon the real dispute with respect to the subject matter of the suit. In a similar case reported in AIR 1979 Delhi 171, it was held that in an ejectment suit by a land -lord against a tenant, a third person could be impleaded as a defendant on the ground of his allegedly being the real tenant. In order to minimise the litigation and on the basis of the tests laid down hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was a necessary party and his application should have been allowed. While accepting this revision petition, I set aside the order dated 9 -6 -1980, passed by the Munsiff, 1st Class Jammu and direct that the petitioner be arrayed as a defendant in the suit and afforded an opportunity of being heard and defend the cause. Any observation made in this order should not be taken to be an expression of an opinion regarding the merits of the case. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs The parties present through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial court on "13 -12 -1987.