MADAN LAL Vs. BHERU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner- applicant seeks to question the order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Sridungargarh in Civil Suit No.06/2005 whereby the application moved by him under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment in the pending suit has been rejected.

(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that the plaintiffs- respondents Nos.1 & 2 Bheru Mal and Mool Chand have filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-respondent No.3 Babu Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal. THE plaintiffs have asserted the defendant to be the tenant in the suit premises and the tenancy having been terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. THE defendant has denied the plaint allegations and has taken the plea that his father Bhanwar Lal had been the original tenant in the suit premises and during his life time, the tenancy was assigned to Madan Lal (the petitioner - elder brother of the defendant); and that Madan Lal was the tenant of the plaintiffs and the defendant Babu Lal was only working as an employee of Madan Lal. An issue has also been framed by the Trial Court, being issue No.6, on the question as to whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for Madan Lal (the petitioner) being the tenant.

(3.) TRUE it is that the defendant Babu Lal has taken the plea in the written statement (Annex.2) that not himself but Madan Lal (the petitioner) is the tenant; and true further it is that on such a plea issue No.6 has also been framed; and hence, the observation of the learned Trial Court in the order impugned that such a plea has not been taken in the written statement does not appear to be in conformity with the record. Further, the other observation of the learned Trial Court that the applicant Madan Lal being the brother of the defendant had the knowledge of the suit and, therefore, ought to have filed the application earlier does not appear to be apposite to the questions before it. However, such shortcomings in the order passed by the learned Trial Court do not take away the substance of the matter that the plaintiffs have filed the suit precisely asserting that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between themselves and the defendant Babu Lal. As noticed, the defendant Babu Lal has denied such a plea and has asserted Madan Lal to be the tenant. Whether Madan Lal, the petitioner, had the knowledge of the suit or not, is a question entirely irrelevant. The relevant and core question in the case calling for determination by the Trial Court would be as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant or not. Such a question would obviously be determined between the parties to the suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. For effectual and complete determination of this question, the presence of the petitioner is not necessary; and the petitioner cannot be acceded a right to intervene in these suit proceedings.