LAWS(RAJ)-1981-7-46

TARESH KUMAR V. Vs. REGHUNANDAN AND OTHERS

Decided On July 02, 1981
TARESH KUMAR V Appellant
V/S
REGHUNANDAN AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order dated February 7, 1981 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur passed in civil original suit No. 175 of 1980 by which he dismissed the petitioner's application under Ooder I, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party to the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 3 for arrears of rent and ejectment. The defendant contested the suit and inter-alia, pleaded that the landlord of the premises in question is the petitioner and he has paid rent to him. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the suit on October 25, 1980, the petitioner moved an application that he is the landlord of the premises in question and, therefore, he may be impleded as party to the suit. The learned Additional Civil Judge, vide his order dated February 7, 1981 dismissed the application. Hence, this revision by the petitioner under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) In Mst. Singer Kanwar v. Dhoop Chand, 1953 RajLW 320, Dave, J. defendant raised a plea that a person other than the plaintiff is the landlord, the other person is not a necessary party. The learned Judge relied on Lodai Mohallah v. Kali Dass Roy, ILR VIII Cal. Series P. 238; Mudaliar v. Komate Chettiar, 1920 AIR(Mad) 91 and Srila Sri Sudramaniya Desika Genana, Sambande Pandara Sannadhi v. R. Ananthakrishnaswami Naidu, 1932 AIR(Mad) 688 In the suit, what the Court will be required to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent as payable to the plaintiff and he is liable to be evicted by the plaintiff. If the petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party, the question of his title would unnecessarily arise in a simple suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to U.I. Trust v. Raj Kumar,1969 AIR(SC) 131 Having read the aforesaid decision, I have no hesitation in saying that it has no bearing on the case in hand.